Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 F.3d 678 - Shannon v. Ford Motor Co.

Shannon v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis

72 F.3d 678 · 1996

Citation profile

118
cited by 118 later decisions
4
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Kim v. Nash Finch Company (1997), Rose-Maston v. NME Hospitals, Inc. (1998)

55 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions

6001996200020102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens

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

  1. “The proper exhaustion of administrative remedies gives the plaintiff a green light to bring [his or] her employment-discrimination claim, along with allegations that are `like or reasonably related' to that claim, in federal court.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “there is a difference between liberally reading a claim which lacks specificity, and inventing, ex nihilo, a claim which simply was not made.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “It would be ironic ... if a victim of discrimination were unable to vindicate her rights because she had the peculiar misfortune of being discriminated against in a way that necessarily prevented her from making her prima facie case.”
    3 later decisions 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.