Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Norman Tompkins Md, No. 98-1604 (1999)
6 district · 8 state decisions
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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hensley v. Eckerhart · 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Damages are available for the intangible injuries of emotional harm such as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. Other nonpeeuniary losses could include injury to professional standing, injury to character and reputation, injury to credit standing, loss of health, and any other nonpeeuniary losses that are incurred as a result of the discriminatory conduct. Nonpeeuniary losses for emotional harm are more difficult to prove than pecuniary losses. Emotional harm will not be presumed simply because the complaining party is a victim of discrimination. The existence, nature, and severity of emotional harm must be proved. Emotional harm may manifest itself, for example, as sleeplessness, anxiety, stress, depression, marital strain, humiliation, emotional distress, loss of self esteem, excessive fatigue, or a nervous breakdown. Physical manifestations of emotional harm may consist of ulcers, gastrointestinal disorders, hair loss, or headaches.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a) “[Plaintiff] presented no corroborating testimony nor did he offer expert medical or psychological evidence of damages caused by his alleged distress.” Id. at 939 . b) “In order to establish intangible loss, we recognize that Carey requires a degree of specificity which may include corroborating testimony or medical or psychological evidence in support of the damage award.” Id. at 940.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] specific discernable injury to [her] emotional state, proven with evidence regarding the nature and extent of the harm.... [H]urt feelings, anger and frustration are part of life, and [are] not the types of harm that could support a mental anguish award.”
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.