Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 328 F.3d 145 - King v. Rumsfeld

King v. Rumsfeld’s Empirical Analysis

328 F.3d 145 · 2003

Citation profile

159
cited by 159 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 159 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Inc. (2004), Price v. Thompson (2004)

10 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 state decisions

840200320102020decided

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 · Evans v. Technologies Applications & Service Co. · Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. · Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc.

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

  1. “To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, King must show: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he suffered from an adverse employment action; (3) that at the time the employer took the adverse employment action he was performing at a level that met his employer’s legitimate expectations; and (4) that the position was filled by a similarly qualified applicant outside the protected class.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) [he] engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer took adverse employment action against [him]; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the asserted adverse action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Plaintiff’s] own testimony, of course, cannot establish a genuine issue as to whether [plaintiff! was meeting [the employer’s] expectations.”). The Fourth Circuit has also stated that”
    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.