486 F. Supp. 59 - Cunningham v. Central Beverage, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia · Thor C. LAUGESEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee · Day v. Mathews · Cleverly v. Western Electric Co. · Marshall v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unless virtually all facially neutral classifications are to become suspect, the use of nonage factors ought to enjoy a strong presumption of reasonableness notwithstanding the age-specific differential impacts that inevitably ensue.”
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.