Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 391 F.3d 644 - Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC

Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC’s Empirical Analysis

391 F.3d 644 · 2004

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
states following
March 2020
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably McCoy v. City of Shreveport (2007), Aryain v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LP (2008)

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

260200420102020decided

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. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2614 (§ 104 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bodenheimer v. PPG Industries, Inc. · Martha D. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHWESTERN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee · Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare System, LLC

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

  1. “(1) demotion; (2) reduction in salary; (3) reduction in job responsibilities; (4) reassignment to menial or degrading work; (5) badgering, harassment, or humiliation by the employer calculated to encourage the employee’s resignation; or (6) offers of early retirement that would make the employee worse off whether the offer were accepted or not.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “claims for violations of [substantive-FMLA] rights invoke entitlement or interference theories and are brought under § 2615(a)(1),” whereas”
    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.