Laber v. Harvey’s Empirical Analysis
438 F.3d 404 · 2006
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 46 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 285 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc. (2007), Henry v. Purnell (2011)
51 federal appellate · 46 district · 6 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Conley v. Gibson · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 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 285 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a post-judgment motion to amend is evaluated under the same legal standard as a similar motion filed before judgment was entered — for prejudice, bad faith, or futility.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]his liberal rule gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Under the ADEA], [w]e apply the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to resolve claims of age discrimination when the plaintiff produces no direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination sufficient to warrant a “mixed-motive” analysis. See Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 101-02 , 123 S.Ct. 2148 , 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003); Hill [v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., 354 F.3d 277 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc)] at 285. Under this framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 . To establish such a prima facie case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he was a member of a protected class, i.e., that he was at least 40 years old; (2) his employer had an open position for which he applied and was qualified; (3) he was rejected despite his qualifications; and (4) the position remained open or was filled by a similarly qualified applicant who was substantially younger than the plaintiff, whether within or outside the class protected by the ADEA. See O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 310-312 , 116 S.Ct. 1307 , 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996). Once a plaintiff makes this prima facie case, he creates a presumption of discrimination, and the burden of production shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment decision. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 , 120 S.C”
3 later decisions 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.