Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 894 F.2d 1497 - Bigge v. Albertsons, Inc.

Bigge v. Albertsons, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

894 F.2d 1497 · 1990

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Goldsmith v. City of Atmore (1993), Weaver v. Casa Gallardo, Inc. (1991)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

350199020002010decided

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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Smith v. Harmsen · Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.

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

  1. “only ... prove that he opposed an unlawful employment practice which he reasonably believed had occurred or was occurring.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) that there was a statutorily protected participation; (2) that an adverse employment action occurred; and (3) that there was a causal link between the participation and the adverse employment action.”
    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.