Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 F.3d 256 - McDonnell v. Cisneros

McDonnell v. Cisneros’s Empirical Analysis

84 F.3d 256 · 1996

Citation profile

153
cited by 153 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 153 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cty. (2009), Smart v. Ball State University (1996)

81 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions

7501996200020102020decided

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 Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Siegert v. Gilley · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.

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

  1. “It would be exceedingly perverse if a male worker could buy his supervisors and his company immunity from Title VII liability by taking care to harass sexually an occasional male worker, though his preferred targets were female.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “a difference in sex is not a necessary condition of sexual activity and hence (most courts think) of sexual harassment”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he allégedly retaliatory conduct was merely the continuation of the conduct giving rise to the [harassment] complaints .... In other words, nothing changed when [the plaintiff] filed her [harassment] complaints. There was no ratcheting up of the harassment. Therefore the complaints could not have been the cause of the ostracism, disdain, and ridicule of which she complains in the retaliation count.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.