Lindsay v. Yates’s Empirical Analysis
578 F.3d 407 · 2009
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. (2012), Anderson v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp. (2010)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Tennessee Middle District Court)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 3603 (§ 803 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]o long as 'additional evidence’ exists ... that indicates discriminatory intent in 'light of common experience,’ the required 'inference of discrimination’ can be made in satisfaction of the prima facie case.” Lindsay, 578 F.3d at 418 . . Hidden Village states that the Defendants engaged in a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing that there is no material issue in dispute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Causation can be proven indirectly through circumstantial evidence such as suspicious timing. Specifically, this Court has found that temporal proximity between an assertion of Title VII rights and a materially adverse action, is sufficient to establish the causal connection element of a retaliation claim “[w]here an adverse employment action occurs very close in time after an employer learns of a protected activity.” Where the nexus is not “very close,” we have declined to find a causal connection based on timing alone.”
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.