Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 656 F.3d 802 - Bennett v. Nucor Corp.

Bennett v. Nucor Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

656 F.3d 802 · 2011

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
3
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Monge v. California · Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth

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

  1. “be 'of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution-which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A proponent of class certification cannot show commonality by demonstrating merely that the class members have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'A district court abuses its discretion when it exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable,' by issuing a decision that 'is not supported by substantial evidence' or one that 'is based on an erroneous application of the law.' " Id. (citations omitted). A. During Wyngarden's testimony he attempted to introduce exhibits 8 to 19, showing Wauters approved day treatment for juveniles on informal probation for other JCOs. One way to show the three-day suspension was pretextual would be to show younger, similarly-situated employees engaged in the same conduct but did not receive the same consequences. See Wyngarden , 2014 WL 4230192 at . We stated: Our test to determine whether individuals are similarly situated requires "that the other employees be similarly situated in all relevant respects before the plaintiff can introduce evidence comparing [himself] to other employees.”
    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.