Murray v. Gilmore’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.3d 708 · 2005
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 71 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Czekalski v. Peters (2007), Woodruff v. Peters (2007)
15 federal appellate · 71 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · University of Tennessee v. Elliott · Aka v. Washington Hospital Center
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the plaintiffs prima facie case; (2) any evidence the plaintiff presents to attack the employer’s proffered explanation for its actions; and (3) any further evidence of discrimination that may be available to the plaintiff (such as independent evidence of discriminatory statements or attitudes on the part of the employer) or any contrary evidence that may be available to the employer (such as evidence of a strong record in equal opportunity employment).”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a [selection] within the same protected class cuts strongly against any inference of discrimination”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“correctly observed that any sexual discrimination claim would be baseless because two of the three employees selected for that transfer were women”
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.