Corley v. Jackson Police Department’s Empirical Analysis
566 F.2d 994 · 1978
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. (1986), Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Ass'n (1980)
44 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. · Jake ROWE Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee · Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · United States v. Forness
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“employees involved in acts against (the employer) of comparable seriousness . . . were nevertheless retained . . ..”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“stopped short of the fact finding and legal analysis required for resolution of this case”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he district court confused the issue of whether the employees actually committed the crime on which their discharge was based with the issue of whether the crime committed was used by the employer as a pretext for discrimination, that is, whether the employer applied the same criterion to other employees accused of the same or comparable offenses. The district court’s opinion addresses no evidence relevant to pretext, the most important of which indicated that, unlike Corley and Carter, other Jackson police officers named by Johnson and Strahan were neither investigated nor discharged. Under these circumstances, the pro forma conclusion of the district court that the discharges of Corley and Carter were “proper” and “for good cause” is insufficient to assure this Court on review that the proper legal standard regarding pretext was applied in reaching the ultimate conclusion. (Footnotes omitted).”
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.