Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 555 F.2d 1251 - William F. TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant

William F. TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis

555 F.2d 1251 · 1977

Citation profile

208
cited by 208 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

120 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 208 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981), Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Committee v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (1981)

120 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

124019771980199020002010decided

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

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. · Causey v. Ford Motor Co. · Higginbotham v. Mobil Oil Corp.

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

  1. “[i]f an employer need only articulate —not prove—a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his action, he may compose fictitious, but legitimate, reasons for his actions.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Title VII & 1981 do not protect against unfair business decisions only against decisions motivated by unlawful animus.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is true that under some circumstances we have held that use of the wrong legal standard may not taint or infect the trial court's findings of fact, so that we remain bound by the clearly erroneous rule. See Smith v. United States, 502 F.2d 512 , 519 (5th Cir. 1974).”
    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.