Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 376 F.3d 529 - Smith v. Henderson

Smith v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis

376 F.3d 529 · 2004

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Burgess v. Fischer (2013), Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc. (2008)

3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

200200420102020decided

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 Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. · Smith v. Ameritech · Carter v. Ball · Beck v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents · Bourque v. Powell Electrical Manufacturing Co.

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

  1. “A constructive discharge requires a determination that “ ‘working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign.’ ” [Held v. Gulf Oil Co., 684 F.2d 427, 432 (6th Cir.1982) ] (quoting Bourque v. Powell Elec. Mfg., 617 F.2d 61, 65 (5th Cir.1980)). See also Policas-tro v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 297 F.3d 535, 539 (6th Cir.2002) (conditions supporting a constructive discharge “must be objectively intolerable to a reasonable person”) (citations omitted).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Whether a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign depends on the facts of each case, but we consider the following factors relevant, singly or in combination: (1) demotion; (2) reduction in salary; (3) reduction in job responsibilities; (4) reassignment to menial or degrading work; (5) reassignment to work under a younger supervisor; (6) badgering, harassment, or humiliation by the employer calculated to encourage the employee’s resignation; or (7) offers of early retirement or continued employment on terms less favorable than the employee’s former status.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “depends upon the facts of each case and requires an inquiry into the intent of the employer and the reasonably foreseeable impact of the employer's conduct upon the employee.”
    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.