Abbey v. Sverdrup Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Alfredo G. Parrish, Etc. v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, Etc., Alabama Black Lawyers Association v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, Etc. · 521 So. 2d 963 - Reeves v. Porter · 534 So. 2d 1038 - Oliver v. Townsend · 504 So. 2d 248 - Noble v. McManus
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Sverdrup argues that much of the discovery Abbey sought was in [Abbey’s] possession at the time it filed its motion for summary judgment. Abbey contends, however, that only a fraction of the discovery had been provided to her at that time, and the motions to compel and her attorney’s statement in his brief in opposition to the summary judgment motion support her contention. Sverdrup also argues that its motion was limited to the alleged procedural flaw in Abbey’s EEOC charges, that discovery relative to that issue had been provided, and that no material issue of fact remained regarding the EEOC proceedings. Therefore, Sverdrup says, the discovery sought by Abbey was not crucial to her case. In her brief in opposition to Sverdrup’s motion, however, Abbey discussed what she considered to be material factual disputes and argued that receipt of her additional requested discovery was essential in order to allow her to properly respond to Sverdrup’s motion. [[Image here]] “... Abbey argued to the trial court, as she does to this court, that one reason the discovery process was incomplete at the time of the motion for partial summary judgment was because Sverdrup’s opposition to many of her discovery requests had delayed the discovery process. The record clearly indicates that the parties were engaged in several discovery disputes. Under these circumstances, it was error for the trial court to enter the partial summary judgment with discovery pending, after Sverdrup’s failure to pr”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.