Harrison v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee’s Empirical Analysis
80 F.3d 1107 · 1996
Citation profile
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
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) 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“[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“(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.