Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 928 F.2d 528 - Rosen v. Thornburgh

Rosen v. Thornburgh’s Empirical Analysis

928 F.2d 528 · 1991

Citation profile

173
cited by 173 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 14 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp. (1994), Norton v. Sam's Club (1998)

28 federal appellate · 14 district ·

1050199120002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · Johnson v. Righetti

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

  1. “[a] victim of discrimination is ... seldom able to prove his or her claim by direct evidence and is usually constrained to rely on the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence.... Consequently, in a Title VII action, where a defendant’s intent and state of mind are placed at issue, summary judgment is ordinarily inappropriate.”
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) was a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was discharged; and (4) the discharge occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Under that framework, a plaintiff must satisfy the minimal burden of making out a prima facie case of discrimination; the burden then shifts to the defendant to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and the final burden rests on the plaintiff to prove not only that the proffered nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual but also that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff.”
    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.