Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 414 F.3d 124 - Cepero-Rivera v. Fagundo

Cepero-Rivera v. Fagundo’s Empirical Analysis

414 F.3d 124 · 2005

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
April 2021
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 48 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Maymí v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority (2008), Marrero-Gutierrez v. Molina (2007)

25 federal appellate · 48 district ·

470200520102020decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.

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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]e stress that under the Mt. Healthy burden shifting scheme, unlike Title VII cases, the burden of persuasion actually shifts to defendants after plaintiff establishes a prima facie case. Under Title VII, once the plaintiff establishes a pri-ma facie case, the employer need only submit enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact — i.e., only the burden of production shifts to the employer. However, in a First Amendment political discrimination case, in which the Mt. Healthy scheme is applicable, the burden of persuasion shifts to the defendant, and the plaintiff-employee will prevail unless the fact finder concludes that the defendant has produced enough evidence to establish that the plaintiffs dismissal would have occurred in any event for nondiscriminatory reasons.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The general rule is that `in limited circumstances, sua sponte dismissals of complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) ... are appropriate,' but that `such dismissals are erroneous unless the parties have been afforded notice and an opportunity to amend the complaint or otherwise respond.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if 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 judgment as a matter of law.”
    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.