Cham v. Station Operators, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 18 district ·

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

1. “'bypass the prima facie case issue because it is clear that plaintiff has not mustered enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that [the defendant's] stated reason' for the employment action was pretextual.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Luceus v. Rhode Island · Baer v. Montachusett Reg'l Technical Sch. Dist.

2. “the McDonnell Douglas framework 'disappears' and the sole remaining issue is 'discrimination vel non.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Theidon v. Harvard University · Brader v. Biogen Inc.

3. “The court considers “[a]ll of the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence ... in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,” and may not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or the weight of the evidence. Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 610 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir.2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Espada v. Lugo, 312 F.3d 1 , 2 (1st Cir.2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the plaintiff is not entitled to inferences based on speculation and conjecture.” Id. (quoting Vázquez-Valentín v. Santiago-Díaz, 385 F.3d 23, 30 (1st Cir.2004), rev’d on other grounds, 546 U.S. 1163 , 126 S.Ct. 1329 , 164 L.Ed.2d 43 (2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 52 F. Supp. 3d 240 - Campos v. Van Ness