Ingram v. Brink's, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
414 F.3d 222 · 2005
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 31 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Maymí v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority (2008), Freadman v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance (2007)
22 federal appellate · 31 district · 1 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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Corning Glass Works v. Brennan · Mesnick v. General Electric Co. · Garside v. Osco Drug, 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once the moving party avers the absence of genuine issues of material fact, the nonmovant must show that a factual dispute does exist, but summary judgment cannot be defeated by relying on improbable inferences, conclusory allegations, or rank speculation.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“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 a judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“at least one discriminatory act occurred within” the limitations period). . This ruling obviates the need to address City Council Defendants’ argument that the whistleblower statute bars liability against individual supervisors. Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [# 24], 3-4. . Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [# 24], 2, 5. The supporting memorandum expressly identifies “counts VII, X, XI, XII and XIII” as the counts subject to dismissal. Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [# 24], 6. The memorandum also identifies by cause of action the following claims as subject to dismissal based on the exclusivity clause:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.