Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 29 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Paul v. Howard University (2000), Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breeden (1995)
6 federal appellate · 29 district · 48 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.
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. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`by articulating some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for [the termination],'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If you find in favor of Elizabeth Reese for her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, you should award [her] an amount to fully and fairly compensate her for any mental pain and suffering, nervousness, indignity, humiliation, embarrassment, and insult to which she was subjected and which is a direct result of the offending conduct. Moreover, you may, but are not required to, award an additional sum in punitive damages. The purpose of punitive damages is to punish a Defendant and to discourage any of them and others from committing similar acts. Any award you make in punitive damages should be sufficient in amount to, in your best collective judgment, serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence [emphasis added].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“make a prima facie showing of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. The prima facie showing, when made, raises a rebuttable presumption that the employer’s conduct amounted to unlawful discrimination. Once the presumption is raised, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut it by articulating “some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the employment action.” ... Finally, “the burden shifts back to the employee to prove, again by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer’s stated justification for its action ‘was not its true reason but was in fact merely a pretext’ to disguise discriminatory practice.””
2 later decisions 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.