Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 633 F.3d 522 - Ellis v. DHL Express Inc.

Ellis v. DHL Express Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

633 F.3d 522 · 2011

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2023
most recently cited

8 federal appellate ·

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (§ 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (§ 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (§ 5 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2107 (§ 8 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act)

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · United States v. Mead Corp. · Henn v. National Geographic Society · Malak v. Associated Physicians, Inc. · Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The WARN Act requires “employers” (defined as businesses with 100 or more full-time employees) to provide employees with written notice of impending “plant closings” or “mass layoffs” at least sixty days prior to the closing or layoffs. The WARN Act does not apply—and the employer need not provide advance notice to any of its workers—if the shutdown of a plant does not result in an employment loss of at least 50 full-time employees at a single site of employment, or the layoffs do not affect at least 33% of full-time employees. Despite the lack of practical distinction between eliminating 49 or 50 full-time jobs, or between laying off 32% or 33% of a workforce in a thirty-day period, the numerical thresholds in the WARN Act are immutable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Despite the lack of practical distinction between eliminating 49 or 50 full-time jobs, or between laying off 32% or 33% of a workforce in a thirty-day period, the numerical thresholds in the WARN Act are immutable.”
    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.