Thor C. LAUGESEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee’s Empirical Analysis
510 F.2d 307 · 1975
Citation profile
91 federal appellate · 23 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 229 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Mitchell v. Toledo Hospital (1992), Loeb v. Textron, Inc. (1979)
91 federal appellate · 23 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Curtis v. Loether · Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. · 4 Fair empl.prac.cas. 269, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7629 James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Broward County, Florida
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 229 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n a normal case, absent any discriminatory intent, discharged employees will more often than not be replaced by those younger than they, for older employees are constantly moving out of the labor market, while younger ones move in.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e believe that it was essential for the jury to understand from the instructions that there could be more than one factor in the decision to discharge him and that he was nevertheless entitled to recover if one such factor was his age and if in fact it made a difference in determining whether he was retained or discharged. This is so even though the need to reduce the employee force generally was also a strong, and perhaps even more compelling reason.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he court should [instruct] the jury that for plaintiff to prevail he had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his age was the “determining factor” in his discharge in the sense that “but for” his employer’s motive to discriminate against him ... he would not have been discharged.”
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.