Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 F.3d 1546 - Saffels

Saffels’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably 595 F. Supp. 2d 240 - Yu G. Ke v. Saigon Grill, Inc. (2008), Rackley v. Fairview Care Centers, Inc. (2001)

2 district · 3 state decisions

1301990200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Tennessee Coal Iron Co v. Muscoda Local No 123 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co · Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. · Johnson v. Minnesota Historical Society · Love v. Re/Max of America, 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person ... to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee had filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An at-will employee may state a claim under Missouri's public policy exception when an employer's act of discharging the employee is violative of a statute, a regulation based on a statute, or a constitutional provision.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The purpose of § 15(a)(3) is not merely to vindicate the rights of complaining parties, but to foster an environment in which employees are unfettered in their decision to voice grievances without fear of economic retaliation or reprisal.”
    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.