Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 415 F.3d 399 - Wheeler v. BL Development Corp.

Wheeler v. BL Development Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

415 F.3d 399 · 2005

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
1
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably McCoy v. City of Shreveport (2007), Piazza's Seafood World, LLC v. Odom (2006)

14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

480200520102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Laxton v. Gap Inc. · Cecilia Okoye v. The University of Texas Houston Health Science 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory or nonretaliatory reason for its employment action. The employer's burden is only one of production.... If the employer meets its burden of production, the plaintiff then bears the ultimate burden of proving that the employer’s proffered reason is not true but instead is a pretext for the real discriminatory or retaliatory purpose.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “This Court reviews grants of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.”). 3 . 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). 4 . See, e.g., Abarca v. Metro. Transit Auth., 404 F.3d 938, 941 (5th Cir.2005) (applying the McDonnell Douglas test); Rios v. Rossotti, 252 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir.2001). 5 . See, e.g., Abarca, 404 F.3d at 941 . 6 . Id. 7 . See Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Carner, 997 F.2d 94, 98 (5th Cir.1993) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 1981, Appellants must establish that the: (1) are members of a protected group; (2) were qualified for the position held; (3) were discharged from the position; and (4) were replaced by persons outside of the protected group.”
    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.