Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 928 F.2d 1413 - Duke

Duke’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

125
cited by 125 later decisions
9
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 13 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Rendine v. Pantzer (1995), Mitchell v. Data General Corp. (1993)

24 federal appellate · 13 district · 14 state decisions

5201990200020102020decided

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 · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Curtis v. Loether · Ross v. Bernhard · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank

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

  1. “(1) the employee was protected by the ADEA; (2) he was selected for discharge from a larger group of candidates; (3) he was performing at a level substantially equivalent to the lowest level of those of the group retained; and (4) the process of selection produced a residual work force of persons in the group containing some unprotected persons who were performing at a level lower than that at which he was performing.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If a plaintiff is close to retirement, front pay may be the only practical approach.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[W]hen the employer has demonstrated such extreme hostility that, as a practical matter, a productive and amicable working relationship would be impossible. Reinstatement has also been found inappropriate when the litigation itself created such animosity between the parties that any potential employer-employee relationship was irreparably damaged; or when the company was no longer in business; or when the particular business for which the plaintiff was qualified was no longer operating; or when there was no comparable position available. Also when the period for reinstatement was expected to be a relatively short one----”
    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.