Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 336 F.3d 128 - Terry v. Ashcroft

Terry v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

336 F.3d 128 · 2003

Citation profile

839
cited by 839 later decisions
4
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

66 federal appellate · 65 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 839 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Feingold v. New York (2004), Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic (2004)

66 federal appellate · 65 district · 5 state decisions

5180200320102020decided

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

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 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 839 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “While the standard for establishing a hostile work environment is high, we have repeatedly cautioned against setting the bar too high, noting that “[w]hile a mild, isolated incident does not make a work environment hostile, the test is whether ‘the harassment is of such quality or quantity that a reasonable employee would find the conditions of her employment altered for the worse.’ ” (alteration and emphasis in the original).”
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities.”
    13 later decisions 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.