DiBiase v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.3d 719 · 1995
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 30 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Newman v. GHS Osteopathic, Inc., Parkview Hospital Division (1995), Alvarez-Fonseca v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Co. (1998)
40 federal appellate · 30 district · 5 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 631 (§ 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hishon v. King & Spalding · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s age....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a policy discriminates on its face only `if "discrimination is apparent from the terms of the policy itself”
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.