Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 F.3d 1107 - Harrison v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee

Harrison v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee’s Empirical Analysis

80 F.3d 1107 · 1996

Citation profile

144
cited by 144 later decisions
4
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Torres v. Pisano (1997), Nguyen v. City of Cleveland (2000)

41 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

7901996200020102020decided

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 · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson

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

  1. “(1) that she engaged in an activity protected by Title VII; (2) that the defendant knew of the plaintiffs exercise of her civil rights; (3) that, thereafter, the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff; and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]ó be deemed ‘similarly-situated,’ the individuals with whom the plaintiff seeks to compare his/her treatment must have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards and have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of [retaliation]; (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in fact pretextual.”
    3 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.