Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 875 A2D 13 - DeCamp v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

DeCamp v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2022

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions

150200520102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Monge v. California

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

  1. ““shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was performing her job at a level that rules out the possibility that she was fired for inadequate job performance; (3) she suffered an adverse job action by her employer; and (4) her employer sought a replacement for her with roughly equivalent qualifications.” DeCamp v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 875 A.2d 13, 21 (R.I.2005) (quoting Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir.1994)).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) that she was disabled within the meaning of the [relevant statute]; (2) that she was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (3) that she was discharged or adversely affected because of the disability.”
    1 later decision 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.