Doe v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
30 F.3d 879 · 1994
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Cleveland v. Porca Co. (1994), United States v. Raymond (2000)
14 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). Because there is no genuine dispute as to whether age was a factor in Northwest's employment actions, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e), the district court's grant of summary judgment in Northwest's favor is AFFIRMED. * After preliminary examination of the briefs, the court notified the parties that it had tentatively concluded that oral argument would not be helpful to the court in this case. The notice provided that either of the parties could file a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court will conclude that there is no genuine material issue as to any proposed finding of fact to which no response is set out.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the time of appeal is too late to specify portions of the record which may create an issue of material fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.