Kaufman v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
745 F.3d 521 · 2014
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (§ 23 of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976) · 33 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 300J · 42 U.S.C. § 5851 · 42 U.S.C. § 6971 · 42 U.S.C. § 6976 · 42 U.S.C. § 7622 · 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (§ 110 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Wilson v. Garcia · Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Delaware State College v. Ricks
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]erhaps a failure to reinstate might in some circumstances constitute an independent discriminatory act”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a complainant can show disparate treatment or bias in the reinstatement process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“defect in the reinstatement process” rendered “the failure to reinstate independently adverse to the claimant.” Id. at 530 (emphasis in original). These circumstances, however, did not apply to the plaintiff in Kaufman because the plaintiff had”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Craig v. Mnuchin
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.