Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 873 F.2d 60 - Rayner v. Smirl

Rayner v. Smirl’s Empirical Analysis

873 F.2d 60 · 1989

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably Michael McMonagle v. Northeast Women's Center, Inc (1989), Lambert v. Ackerley (1998)

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

1901989199020002010decided

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. § 652 (§ 3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 45 U.S.C. § 153 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 421 · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)

Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

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

  1. “because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted ... any proceeding under or related to [the FLSA],”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “comprehensive remedial scheme ... serves to confirm [the FRSA's] preemptive scope.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A railroad carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce may not discharge or in any way discriminate against an employee because the employee, whether acting for the employee or as a representative, has— (1) filed a complaint or brought' or caused to be brought a proceeding related to the enforcement of this part or, as applicable to railroad safety, chapter 51 or 57 of this title; or (2) testified or will testify in that proceeding.”
    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.