Degraw v. Exide Technologies’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 2614 (§ 104 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2617 (§ 107 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Marathon Oil Co. v. United States
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he FMLA requires that an employee be restored by the employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the [FMLA] leave commenced. It is unlawful for any employer to interfere with that right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When he returned in November, plaintiff was not returning from FMLA leave and thus cannot state an entitlement claim under the FMLA.”
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.