Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Center’s Empirical Analysis
919 F.2d 339 · 1990
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. (1992), Seatrax, Inc. v. Sonbeck International, Inc. (2000)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Link v. Wabash Railroad
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]lthough giving a violator a hearing before the court imposes sanctions may be preferable, this court declines to adopt a per se rule mandating such a pre-sanction hearing.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that it will review the modification of a pretrial order 'under the”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCraig Huval Kathy Huval v. Offshore Pipelines, Inc. Bud's Boat Rntl Inc. And B & I Welding Services & Consultants, Inc. Defendant--Third Party Plaintiff--Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Julius F. Eirich, Jr., Third Party Defendant- Appellant- Cross-Appellee v. North Star Agency, Inc., Third Party Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, and Excell Mel Underwriters, Third Party · Seatrax, Inc. v. Sonbeck International, Inc.“The procedure obviously must comport with due process requirements. The particular format to be followed should depend on the circumstances of the situation and the severity of the sanction under consideration.”
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.