Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 836 F.2d 845 - Goldberg v. B. Green & Co.

Goldberg v. B. Green & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

836 F.2d 845 · 1988

Citation profile

244
cited by 244 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 56 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 244 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Evans v. Technologies Applications & Service Co. (1996), Holifield v. Reno (1997)

69 federal appellate · 56 district · 2 state decisions

12401988199020002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 631 (§ 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Jizmejian v. United States · Griffin v. United States

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

  1. “of a stated purpose to discriminate [on the basis of age] of sufficient probative force to reflect a genuine issue of material fact.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “burden 'under ordinary principles of proof by any direct or indirect evidence relevant to and sufficiently probative of the issue.'”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) [T]he plaintiff is in the protected age group; (2) the plaintiff was discharged or demoted; (3) at the time of discharge or demotion, the plaintiff was performing his job at a level that met his employer’s legitimate expectations; and (4) following his discharge or demotion, the plaintiff was replaced by someone of comparable qualifications outside the protected class [or, in the case of a reduction-in-force,] some other evidence that the employer did not treat age neutrally.”
    4 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.