Higdon v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
393 F.3d 1211 · 2004
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc. (2007), Nagle v. Marron (2011)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (§ 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (§ 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Clark County School District v. Breeden · United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property in Greene & Tuscaloosa Counties · Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Florida, Inc. · Davis v. Town of Lake Park
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there is a substantial delay between the protected expression and the adverse action in the absence of other evidence tending to show causation, the complaint or retaliation fails as a matter of law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Protected expression involves opposing an employment practice made unlawful under Title VII or charging, testifying, assisting, or participating in a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing. Statutorily protected expression includes complaining to superiors about harassment in the work place, lodging complaints with the EEOC and participating in [a] discrimination-based lawsuit. To establish the causal link requirement, the plaintiff merely has to prove that the protected activity and the negative employment action are not completely unrelated. The plaintiff must at least establish that the employer was actually aware of the protected expression at the time it took adverse employment action against the plaintiff.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). Thus, Zhou can establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Therefore, the burden shifts to Intergraph to articulate a non-retaliatory reason for Zhou's discharge. Intergraph has proffered that it discharged Zhou as part of a reduction in force necessitated by financial concerns, and that it selected Zhou because her”
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.