Allen v. Sybase, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
468 F.3d 642 · 2006
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Gallant (2008), Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc. (2009)
12 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (§ 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (§ 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (§ 5 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2107 (§ 8 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act)
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Shepard v. United States · Committee for the First Amendment v. Campbell · Ocelot Oil Corporation v. Sparrow Industries
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a reduction in force which ... (A) is not the result of a plant closing; and (B) results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for ... (i) (I) at least 33 percent of the employees (excluding any part-time employees); and (II) at least 50 employees (excluding any part-time employees); or (ii) at least 500 employees (excluding part-time employees)[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A plant closing under the WARN Act is the permanent or temporary shutdown of a single site of employment, or one or more facilities or operating units within a single site of employment, if the shutdown results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for 50 or more employees excluding any part-time employees!.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to place the facts of this case in their relevant context, we begin with a preliminary discussion of WARN, which we will develop more fully in our analysis. WARN is a remedial statute that generally provides protections to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. Advance notice provides workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market. 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a). WARN directs that an employer can be liable for up to sixty days’ back pay and benefits to certain employees who lose their jobs as part of a plant closing or mass layoff without receiving sixty days’ advanced notice. See 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1). An employer may be excused from the sixty-day notice requirement where a mass layoff was the result of an unforeseen business circumstance. Id. at § 2102(b)(2)(A). Nevertheless, an employer “shall give as much notice as is practicable and at that time shall give a brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period.” Id. at § 2102(b)(3). 468 F.3d at 645-46 .”
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.