Downey v. Strain’s Empirical Analysis
510 F.3d 534 · 2007
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Shepherd v. Dallas County (2009), Traxler v. Multnomah County (2010)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Western District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2613 (§ 103 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2617 (§ 107 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. · Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. · Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co. · Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare System, LLC
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“who wishes to appeal on grounds of insufficient evidence must make a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law after the jury's verdict, even when the party has previously made a Rule 50(a) motion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Unitherm, the Supreme Court held that when a party files a Rule 50(a) preverdict motion for judgment as a matter of law but files neither a Rule 50(b) postverdict motion nor a Rule 59 motion for a new trial, the party is precluded from seeking appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict. [Unitherm, 546 U.S. at 400-01 [ 126 S.Ct. 980 ].] The Court held that the district court’s denial of a Rule 50(a) motion cannot form the basis of a party’s appeal because such denial is “merely an exercise of the District Court’s discretion, in accordance with the text of the Rule and the accepted practice of permitting the jury to make an initial judgment about the sufficiency of the evidence.” Id. at 406 [ 126 S.Ct. 980 ]; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) (“the court may determine” that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis and “may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law”) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment, reinstatement, and promotion.”
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.