Manning v. Chevron Chemical Co., LLC’s Empirical Analysis
332 F.3d 874 · 2003
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 166 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC (2006), Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (2004)
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Sanchez v. Standard Brands, 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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the pendency of a suit between the same parties in the wrong forum; (2) plaintiff's unawareness of the facts giving rise to the claim because of the defendant's intentional concealment of them; and (3) the EEOC's misleading the plaintiff about the nature of her rights.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n order to establish the causation prong of a retaliation claim, the employee should demonstrate that the employer knew about the employee’s protected activity.... If an employer is unaware of an employee’s protected conduct at the time of the adverse employment action, the employer plainly could not have retaliated against the employee based on that conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[plaintiff] fails to explain (and we fail to see) how the Court’s decision in Reeves undermines our cases articulating the ‘clearly more qualified’ standard”). Nor, as Bright also asserts, is the standard no standard at all. Acknowledging that courts are not well positioned to compare applicants’ qualifications, this court has stat ed, when discussing the clearly better qualified standard, that "unless disparities in curricula vitae are so apparent as virtually to jump off the page and slap us in the face, we judges should be reluctant to substitute our views for those of the individuals charged with the evaluation duty by virtue of their own years of experience and expertise in the field in question.”
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.