Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 916 F.2d 1298 - Holzman v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc.

Holzman v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

916 F.2d 1298 · 1990

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Visser v. Packer Engineering Associates, Inc. (1991), McNabola v. Chicago Transit Authority (1993)

26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

280199020002010decided

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. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)

Relies on Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston · Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc. · Beard v. Whitley County REMC · Oliver POLLARD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REA MAGNET WIRE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant

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

  1. “It is not enough that age discrimination be present or even that it figured in the decision to fire plaintiff.... In order to find that age was a "determining factor" you must find that age made a difference in the sense that plaintiff would not have been discharged had he been younger. (emphasis added)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that age was a determining factor”
    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.