Lanphear v. Prokop’s Empirical Analysis
703 F.2d 1311 · 1983
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 19 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Harding v. Gray (1993), Mastro v. Potomac Electric Power Co. (2006)
31 federal appellate · 19 district · 1 state decisions
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 · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. · United Steelworkers of America v. Weber
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection. The explanation provided must be legally sufficient to justify a judgment for the defendant. If the defendant carries this burden of production, the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted, and the factual inquiry proceeds to a new level of specificity. Placing this burden of production on the defendant thus serves simultaneously to meet the plaintiff’s prima facie case by presenting a legitimate reason for the action and to frame the issue with sufficient clarity so that the plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] prima facie case of “reverse discrimination” is established upon a showing that “background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,” (citations omitted); and upon a showing that the employer treated differently employees who were similarly situated but not members of the protected group. (Citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he facts necessarily will vary in Title VII cases, and the specification ... of the prima facie proof ... is not necessarily applicable in every respect to differing factual situations.”
2 later decisions 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.