Jones v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.3d 397 · 2007
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Laster v. City of Kalamazoo (2014), Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (2009)
12 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the district court recognized the dispute regarding the similarly situated requirement, it elected to assume ar-guendo that a similarly situated Caucasian employee was treated differently and proceeded to grant summary judgment for [Defendant] on the ground that Plaintiff could not establish pretext. Because this court can affirm a district court’s summary judgment decision on any grounds supported by the record, even if different than those relied on by the district court, we find it proper to first consider whether Plaintiff has established a prima facie case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To recover on a claim of discrimination under either the [Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”) ] or the Rehabilitation Act, which in this circuit share the same substantive standard, “a plaintiff must show that: 1) he is an individual with a disability; 2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the job requirements, with or without reasonable accommodation; and 3) he was discharged solely by reason of his handicap.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that he is disabled, (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodation, (3) that he suffered an adverse employment action, (4) that his employer knew or had reason to know of his disability, and (5) that, following the adverse employment action, either he was replaced by a nondisabled person or his position remained open.”
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.