Warren v. Prejean’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a denial of a motion for JMOL will be reversed only when the evidence is susceptible to no reasonable interpretation supporting the verdict”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Energy Heating, LLC v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC · Waner v. Ford Motor Co.

2. “The State argues that, while Congress may have identified a pattern of unconstitutional gender discrimination by the states, it failed to identify a pattern of retaliatory conduct by the states. This court, however, need not parse the legislative findings with regard to Title VII as finely as the State suggests.... To properly enact legislation under its § 5 authority, Congress need not identify a pattern of each form of gender discrimination in the workplace by the states. Rather, Congress need only identify a history and pattern of unconstitutional behavior on the part of states. Here, Congress clearly identified a pattern of unconstitutional employment discrimination on the basis of gender by the states.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alaska v. EEOC

3. “a district court has broad discretion in instructing the jury, and jury instructions do not need to be technically perfect or even a model of clarity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mems v. City of St. Paul, Department of Fire & Safety Services