Ineichen v. Ameritech’s Empirical Analysis
410 F.3d 956 · 2005
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Coleman v. Donahoe (2012), Mastro v. Potomac Electric Power Co. (2006)
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. · Holland v. Jefferson National Life Insurance · Drake v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. · Mills v. Health Care Service 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“parties cannot thwart the purposes of Rule 56 by creating ‘sham’ issues of fact with affidavits that contradict their prior depositions.... If such contradictions were permitted ... 'the very purpose of the summary judgment motion — to weed out unfounded claims, specious denials, and sham defenses — would be severely undercut.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`background circumstances sufficient to demonstrate that the particular employer has `reason or inclination to discriminate invidiously against whites' or evidence that `there is something "fishy”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is not 'the court's concern that an employer may be wrong about its employee's performance, or be too hard on its employee. Rather, the only question is whether the employer's proffered reason was pretextual, meaning that it was a lie.'”
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.