Wishkin v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
476 F.3d 180 · 2007
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 113 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 218 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably GMAC Inc. v. Coley (In Re Coley) (2010), Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly (2011)
2 federal appellate · 113 district ·
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 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Fuentes v. Perskie
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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When considering whether there exist genuine issues of material fact, the court is required to examine the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, and resolve all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A plaintiff who has made out a prima facie case may defeat a motion for summary judgment by either “(i) discrediting the employer’s proffered reasons, either circumstantially or directly, or (ii) adducing evidence, whether circumstantial or direct, that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the adverse employment action.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Model employer. The Federal Government shall be a model employer of individuals with disabilities. Agencies shall give full consideration to the hiring, placement, and advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities. (b) ADA standards. The standards used to determine whether section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 791), has been violated in a complaint alleging nonaffirmative action employment discrimination under this part shall be the standards applied under Titles I and V (sections 501 through 504 and 510) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12101, 12111, 12201), as such sections relate to employment. These standards are set forth in the Commission’s ADA regulations at 29 CFR part 1630.”
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.