Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 696 F.2d 94 - Milton v. Weinberger

Milton v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis

696 F.2d 94 · 1982

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 69 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Waterhouse v. District of Columbia (2002), Fischbach v. District of Columbia Department of Corrections (1996)

21 federal appellate · 69 district · 2 state decisions

3601982199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.

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

  1. “second-guess an employer's personnel decision absent demonstrably discriminatory motive.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a discrete remedy phase begins. Any individual class claimant may raise a presumption that he is entitled to relief upon a prima facie showing of class membership. The burden of proof then shifts to the employer to rebut that presumption in each individual case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is intended to suggest that the employee who is denied the promotion should also be denied back pay, seniority credit, attorney’s fees, costs, equitable relief, or the like, where any such relief is otherwise found to be appropriate. Under Day v. Mathews, the defendant — a proven or admitted discriminator — bears a very high burden of proving that relief should not issue despite the finding of discrimination. As was made clear in Day :”
    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.