Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 436 F.3d 284 - Quinones v. Buick

Quinones v. Buick’s Empirical Analysis

436 F.3d 284 · 2006

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
March 2021
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 50 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Mariani-Colón v. Department of Homeland Security (2007), Forestier Fradera v. Municipality of Mayagüez (2006)

18 federal appellate · 50 district ·

370200620102020decided

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. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · United States v. Zannino

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

  1. “[Plaintiffs] affidavit does not contain adequate specific factual information based on personal knowledge to back his allegation of ... discrimination and so create a triable issue. In large part, it contains only [plaintiffs] own speculation about the way the [place of employment] was run. Thus [plaintiff] cites no supporting evidence to which he could testify in court tending to prove his conelusory allegations] ... Neither did [Plaintiff] indicate how he had come to have personal knowledge of these alleged facts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “At the. third stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework, it becomes the plaintiffs burden to establish that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. At the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must produce evidence to create a genuine issue of fact with respect to two points: whether the employer’s articulated reason for its adverse action was a pretext and whether the real reason was [gender] discrimination.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Without first-hand knowledge of facts supporting his allegations, [the plaintiff] could not simply testify to a belief.”
    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.