Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 F. Supp. 2d 1067 - Smith v. DataCard Corp.

9 F. Supp. 2d 1067 - Smith v. DataCard Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

9 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2012

9 district · 4 state decisions

70199820002010decided

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. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson

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

  1. “The scope of the investigation is directly related to the severity of the risk third parties are subjected to by an incompetent employee. *** [0]nly slight care might suffice in the hiring of a yardman, a worker on a production line, or other types of employment where the employee would not constitute a high risk of injury to third persons ***.”
    2 later decisions 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.