Kidwell v. Eisenhauer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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

1. “[W]e may affirm on any basis that appears in the record,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Valencia v. City of Springfield · Skiba v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.

2. “at least a motivating factor in the employer's actions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schmoeller v. Vill. of Island Lake · 364 F. Supp. 3d 870 - Wheeler v. Piazza

3. “[Pjroduce sufficient evidence to show that [the] purportedly protected speech was at least a motivating factor in the defendants’ alleged retaliatory employment actions taken against [her], [Plaintiff] may do so by presenting either direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed by the trier of fact, will prove the particular fact in question without reliance upon inference of presumption. Circumstantial evidence, however, is evidence from which a trier of fact may infer that retaliation occurred. Circumstantial evidence may include suspicious timing, ambiguous oral or written statements, or behavior towards or comments directing at other employees in the protected group.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 889 F. Supp. 2d 1101 - Kinney v. Anglin