Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis
513 F.3d 1261 · 2008
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 245 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Bryant v. CEO DeKalb Co. (2009), Smith v. CorporaTion (2011)
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell
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 245 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] the ham caused was physical as opposed to economic; [2] the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; [3] the target of the con duct had financial vulnerability; [4] the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and [5] the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“We consider all the evidence, and the inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We do not construe the "causal link” in [the Title VII retaliation] formula to be the sort of logical connection that would justify a prescription that the protected participation in fact prompted the adverse action ... Rather, we construe the "causal link” element to require merely that the plaintiff establish that the protected activity and the adverse action were not wholly unrelated. 757 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir.1985). See also E.E.O.C. v. Reichhold Chems., Inc., 988 F.2d 1564, 1571-72 (11th Cir.1993) ("This court has interpreted the causal link requirement [for retaliation claims] broadly; a plaintiff merely has to prove that the protected activity and the negative employment action are not completely unrelated.”) (citing Sim mons); Olmsted v. Taco Bell Corp., 141 F.3d 1457, 1460 (11th Cir.1998) (same) (citing Reichhold); Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1277-78 (11th Cir.2008) (same) (citing the previous three cases); Chapter 7 Trustee v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 683 F.3d 1249, 1260 (11th Cir.2012) (same) (citing Goldsmith and Olmsted).”
2 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.