Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 492 F.3d 665 - Dixon v. Clem

Dixon v. Clem’s Empirical Analysis

492 F.3d 665 · 2007

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Howard (2010), Medical Mutual v. K. Amalia Enterprises Inc. (2008)

10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

460200720102020decided

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. § 1927 · 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Butz v. Economou · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Stump v. Sparkman · Hans v. State of Louisiana

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “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
  2. “[a]ny attorney ... who so multiples the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 9 .”
    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.