Holcomb v. Iona College’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 130 · 2008
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 52 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 433 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Gorzynski v. Jetblue Airways Corp. (2010), Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)
36 federal appellate · 52 district · 5 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 New York Southern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
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 433 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“show[ ] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“resolv[ing] all ambiguities and draw[ing] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought,” Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2008),”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination .... If the plaintiff does so, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action .... If such a reason is provided, plaintiff may no longer rely on the presumption raised by the prima facie case, but may still prevail by showing, without the benefit of the presumption, that the employer’s determination was in fact the result of ... discrimination.”
8 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.