Day v. Staples, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
555 F.3d 42 · 2009
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Van Asdale v. International Game Technology (2009), Meuser v. Federal Express Corp. (2009)
18 federal appellate · 9 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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (§ 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 49 U.S.C. § 42121
Relies on St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · United States v. Mead Corp. · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) to provide information ... regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341 [mail fraud], 1343 [wire fraud], 1344 [bank fraud], or 1348 [securities fraud], any rule or regulation of the [SEC], or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information ... is provided to . (C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct) ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(i) the employee engaged in a protected activity or conduct; (ii) the [employer] knew or suspected, actually or constructively, that the employee engaged in the protected activity; (iii) the employee suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and (iv) the circumstances were sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The plain language of SOX does not provide protection for any type of information provided by an employee but restricts the employee’s protection to information only about certain types of conduct. Those types of conduct fall into three broad categories: (1) a violation of specified federal criminal fraud statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud), § 1343 (wire fraud), § 1344 (bank fraud), § 1348 (securities fraud); (2) a violation of any rule or regulation of the SEC; and/or (3) a violation of any provision of federal law relating to fraud against shareholders. The first and third categories share a common denominator: that the conduct involves “fraud,” and many of the second category claims (violations of SEC rules or regulations) will also involve fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.