Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 574 F.2d 958 - Cova v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis, Inc.

Cova v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

574 F.2d 958 · 1978

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
4
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Dace v. ACF Industries, Inc. (1983), Geller v. Markham (1980)

51 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

61019781980199020002010decided

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 · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Thor C. LAUGESEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee · Fugate v. Morton

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

  1. “(1) that he or she is within a protected age group, (2) that he or she met applicable job qualifications, (3) that despite these qualifications, he or she was discharged, and (4) that, after the discharge the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applications from persons with similar qualifications.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “based on reasonable factors other than age,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]here appears to have been a trend toward younger employees but in several instances [the manager] retained or hired persons within the protected age group.” Id. at 961 . Thus, the court found no error in the district court's ruling. Id. . Defendant does not object to the magistrate judge's finding Mr. Hauf was substantially younger than Mr. Stevens because of the thirteen-year difference in their ages. (Dockets 103 atpp. 42-43). .”
    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.