Trout v. Garrett’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2011
2 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 5596
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Brady v. State of Maryland · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Trout v. O'Keefe“In recognition of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard imposed upon defendants at the individual relief hearings, defendants have stated that five additional promotions of females would have been appropriate during the period of March 1972 to June 1979 Thus, defendants contend that this make whole relief, should be limited to Ms. Marie Lassiter Broughton, Ms. Claire Chong, Ms. Carolyn Harwood, Ms. Faye B. Tolliver, and Ms. Carole Velvin____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Trout v. O'Keefe“Defendants’ Statement Regarding the Status of Backpay Claims for [the Five Claimants] at 6 (September 20, 1990). . The paper in question was signed only by Mr. Rees, although the names of Jay Stephens, the United States Attorney, and Assistant United States Attorney John D. Bates were also”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Trout v. O'Keefe
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.