Rynders v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
650 F.3d 1188 · 2011
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (§ 101 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik · Garcetti v. Ceballos · Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. · Darby v. Bratch
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The employee “need not invoke the FMLA by name in order to put an employer on notice.” [Thorson, 205 F.3d at 381]. “Our cases instruct that the adequacy of an employee’s notice requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances and is typically a jury question.” Murphy v. FedEx Nat’l LTL, Inc., 618 F.3d 893, 903 (8th Cir.2010) (citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen an employee becomes aware of a need for FMLA leave less than 30 days in advance, it should be practicable for the employee to provide notice of the need for leave either the same day or the next business day .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“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.