Irby v. Bittick’s Empirical Analysis
44 F.3d 949 · 1995
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Cooper v. Southern Co. (2004), Steger v. General Electric Co. (2003)
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Corning Glass Works v. Brennan · Youngberg v. United States · United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property in Greene & Tuscaloosa Counties
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) ... any other factor other than sex.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court examines the substantive law involved to determine which facts are material. All reasonable doubts about facts are resolved in favor of the non-moving party. If the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, it must demonstrate that “on all the essential elements of its case on which it bears the burden of proof at trial, no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.” “Once a moving party has sufficiently supported its motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must come forward with significant, probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact”; it “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.””
2 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.