Velazquez-Ortiz v. Vilsack’s Empirical Analysis
657 F.3d 64 · 2011
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 22 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Clark County School District v. Breeden · Brown v. General Services Administration · Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. · Mesnick v. General Electric Co. · Calero-Cerezo v. United States Department of Justice
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“entry of summary judgment de novo and affirm if the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant, reveals no genuine issue of material fact and demonstrates that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Title VII expressly forbids not only direct discrimination, but also retaliation against an individual who has complained about discriminatory employment practices.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the [adverse employment] action was causally - 22 - linked to her involvement in the protected activity”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paul v. Murphy
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.