Kinkead v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.3d 454 · 1995
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Smith v. Ameritech (1997), Rabushka United States v. Crane Company (1997)
33 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 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Bullock v. United States · Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc. · Rath v. Selection Research, Inc. · McGann v. H & H Music Co. · Thompson-El v. Jones
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 1140. Interference with protected rights It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan, this subchapter, section 1201 of this title, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act [ 29 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.], or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan, this sub- chapter, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act....”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. If the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the claimant to prove that the proffered reason is pretextual.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'The standard of review of the district court's refusal to compel discovery is one of gross abuse of discretion.'”
3 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.