Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 448 F.3d 1046 - Richardson v. Sugg

Richardson v. Sugg’s Empirical Analysis

448 F.3d 1046 · 2006

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
July 2023
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably King v. United States (2009), Morgan v. Ag Edwards & Sons Inc (2007)

21 federal appellate · 4 district ·

250200620102020decided

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 Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “provides that 'an employer cannot shield itself from liability for unlawful termination by using a purportedly independent person or committee as the decisionmaker where the decisionmaker merely serves as the conduit, vehicle, or rubber stamp by which another achieves his or her unlawful design.' ” (quoting Dedmon v. Staley, 315 F.3d 948 , 949 n. 2 (8th Cir.2003))). The situation with Eppard is not so much a”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A district court's choice between two permissible views of evidence cannot be clearly erroneous.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “must be strong enough to show a specific link between the [alleged] discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the employment decision,”
    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.