Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 859 F.3d 264 - Matherly v. Andrews

Matherly v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis

859 F.3d 264 · 2017

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
May 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4248 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963)

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Bell v. Wolfish · Turner v. Safley

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

  1. “'[c]onclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice' to oppose a properly supported motion for summary judgment, 'nor does a mere scintilla of evidence.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “allocating scarce resources in an effective fashion”
    1 later decision 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.