Ezell v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
400 F.3d 1041 · 2005
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Tamayo v. Blagojevich (2008), Coleman v. Donahoe (2012)
35 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Monge v. California · Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth · Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. · Rush v. McDonald's Corp.
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This is a curious claim from an entity whose primary business is delivering mail. Misplacing certified mail, that is, mail that has been designated as especially important by its sender, would seem to be a serious matter. . . . [W]e may infer [from the termination of another employee for merely delaying mail] that losing mail would . . . be a serious offense, at least as serious as taking a long lunch.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the current claim reasonably could have developed from the EEOC's investigation of the charges before it,”
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.