Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 538 F.3d 32 - Prescott v. Higgins

Prescott v. Higgins’s Empirical Analysis

538 F.3d 32 · 2008

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
August 2023
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 76 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Estate of Bennett v. Wainwright (2008), Sutliffe v. Epping School District (2009)

21 federal appellate · 76 district ·

860200820102020decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 705 · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins

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

  1. “(1) [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2)[s]he experienced uninvited harassment; (3) the harassment was racially-based; (4) the harassment was so severe or pervasive as to create an abusive work environment; and (5) the harassment was objectively and subjectively offensive.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]hether an environment is ‘hostile’ or ‘abusive’ can be determined only by looking at all of the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance .... [Wjhile psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2) [s]he met [her] employer's expectations; (3) [s]he suffered adverse employment action with respect to compensation; and (4) similarly-situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.”
    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.