620 F. Supp. 2d 40 - Williams v. Vilsack’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 1921 (Agricultural Credit Act of 1978)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“even assuming Plaintiffs were able to show that Defendants mistakenly applied the eligibility criteria, Plaintiffs would still have to proffer evidence that Defendants applied the criteria incorrectly based on Plaintiffs' race, which they have not done”); Joyce v. Office of Architect of Capitol, No. 12-cv-1837, 106 F.Supp.3d 163, 173 , 2015 WL 3393533 , at (D.D.C. May 27, 2015) (explaining, in granting summary judgment on age discrimination claim, that even if the plaintiff were”
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.