Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 361 F.3d 610 - Stavropoulos v. Firestone

Stavropoulos v. Firestone’s Empirical Analysis

361 F.3d 610 · 2004

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably Crawford v. Carroll (2008), Bennett v. Hendrix (2005)

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

570200420102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al. · Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois · Laird v. Tatum

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

  1. “the- district court committed no error by applying Title VII standards of what is an adverse employment action to [the plaintiffs] First Amendment retaliation claim”). See also Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150, 157 (5th Cir.2000)(explaining that, in this First Amendment retaliation context, the Fifth Circuit”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “not explicitly equated [the First Amendment retaliation's adverse employment action] element with Title VII's adverse employment action requirement, [the Eleventh Circuit] regularly draw[s] cases applying this rule to inform our analysis of Title VII retaliation claims.... This is because the standards are consonant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “has declined to expand the list of actionable actions [beyond discharges, demotions, refusals to hire, refusals to promote, and reprimands] ... to ensure that § 1983 does not enmesh federal courts in relatively trial matters.”
    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.