Gerald v. Locksley’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

cited by 8 later decisions

March 2019

most recently cited

7 district ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 631 (§ 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (§ 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 7702

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Conley v. Gibson · Foman v. Davis

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

“Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard is much different than the more lenient standard contained in Rule 15(a). Rule 16(b) does not focus on the bad faith of the movant, or the prejudice to the opposing party. Rather, it focuses on the diligence of the party seeking leave to modify the scheduling order to permit the proposed amendment. Properly construed, “good cause” means that scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a party’s diligent efforts. In other words, this court may “modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if [the deadline] cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Nowell v. Medtronic Inc. · Abraham v. WPX Energy Production, LLC
“[Although the plaintiff need not plead facts that constitute a prima facie case under the framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), in order to survive a motion to dismiss, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510-15 , 122 S.Ct. 992 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002), a civil rights plaintiff retains the burden of alleging facts sufficient to state a claim entitling her to relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Walton v. New Mexico State Land Office · 951 F. Supp. 2d 1136 - Hunt v. Central Consolidated School District
“the moving party [must] show that it has been diligent in attempting to meet the deadlines, which means it must provide an adequate explanation for any delay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. People's Trust Fed. Credit Union v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd.

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.