Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 774 F.2d 786 - Andre v. Bendix Corp.

Andre v. Bendix Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

774 F.2d 786 · 1985

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1988), Berger v. Iron Workers Reinforced Rodmen Local 201 (1988)

47 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

47019851990200020102020decided

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 · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

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

  1. “Because we are unable to follow the district court's chain of reasoning from hostility to sex discrimination and are unable either to affirm the [ultimate] finding of sex discrimination or to determine that the [subsidiary] finding of hostility is clearly erroneous, we will remand this case for a new trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “findings [were] inadequate for meaningful appellate review”
    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.