Mach v. Will County Sheriff’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.3d 495 · 2009
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper · Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) was made by the decision-maker, (2) around the time of the decision, and (3) referred to the challenged employment action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Perry v. State“prejudices of a subordinate or coequal employee to the formal decision-maker”
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.