Austin v. Walgreen Co.’s Empirical Analysis
885 F.3d 1085 · 2018
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. · Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc. · Burrell v. Meads
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.
“[w]e review the grant of summary judgment de novo , construing all facts and drawing all inferences 'in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.' " Austin v. Walgreen Co. , 885 F.3d 1085 , 1087 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 770 F.3d 644 , 649 (7th Cir. 2014) ). Steely discloses out-of-order processors that use past mis-speculations (or "collisions”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]peculation does not defeat summary judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCarty v. Menards
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.