Molthan v. Temple University’s Empirical Analysis
778 F.2d 955 · 1985
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Ezold 91-1780 v. Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen 91-1741 (1992), Mary J. Riordan v. William L. Kempiners and Shirley Randolph (1987)
21 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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 · Cherek v. United States · Cryts v. French · Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the considerations affecting promotion decisions may differ greatly from one department to another, statistical evidence of a general underrepresentation of women in the position of full professor adds little to a disparate treatment claim”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[F]or a plaintiff to succeed in carrying the burden of persuasion, the evidence as a whole must show more than a denial of tenure [or promotion] in the context of disagreement about the scholarly merits of the candidate’s academic work, the candidate’s teaching abilities or the academic needs of the department or university.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“questions concerning the scope of discovery are among those matters which should be almost exclusively committed to the sound discretion of the [District [C]ourt, and we see no reason to disturb the [C]ourt’s discovery ruling here.”
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.