Glass v. LaHood’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
20 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Clark County School District v. Breeden
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In exercising its discretion, the court should consider whether the movant’s reply in fact raises arguments or issues for the first time, whether the nonmov-ant’s proposed surreply would be helpful to the resolution of the pending motion, and whether the movant would be unduly prejudiced were leave to be granted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“so vague and conclusory, and so far removed from the actual employment decision that [was] being challenged, that a reasonable fact-finder could not draw even the weakest inference of discrimination from [those] events.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“affidavits containing nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors, conclusory allegations, and subjective beliefs are wholly insufficient to establish an inference of discrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stoe v. Sessions
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.