Wilbur v. Correctional Services Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
393 F.3d 1192 · 2004
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Gowski v. Peake (2012), United States v. Joseph (2013)
7 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Carole Kolstad v. American Dental Association · Davis v. Town of Lake Park · Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. · Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [FCRA] was patterned after Title VII, and Florida courts have construed the act in accordance with decisions of federal courts interpreting Title VII.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] trial court, upon discovering such an inconsistency, has- the option of either (1) directing entry of judgment on the special verdicts, notwithstanding the in- ■ consistent general verdict; (2) returning the jury for further deliberations; or (3) ordering a new trial ... The principal limitation on the court’s discretion is that it “must be exercised in light of the circumstances under which the inconsistency arises.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) she belongs to a protected group; (2) she has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment was based on her membership in a protected group; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment; and (5) a basis for holding the employer liable exists.”
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.