Smith v. City of Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
228 federal appellate · 178 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 875 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009), Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (2008)
228 federal appellate · 178 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSmith v. City of Jackson (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 628 (§ 9 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, 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 875 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he scope of disparate-impact liability under ADEA is narrower than under Title VII.”
53 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s age; or (3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this chapter.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]here may have been other reasonable ways for [KAPL] to achieve its goals”
9 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.