Schultz v. Windstream Communications, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
600 F.3d 948 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (§ 204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn · LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINK · Smith v. City of Jackson
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed most favorably to the nonmovant, shows no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
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.