929 F. Supp. 562 - Iacampo v. Hasbro, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
41 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 957 F. Supp. 306 - Guckenberger v. Boston University (1997), 143 Wash. 2d 349 - Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide Co. (2001)
41 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 793 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (§ 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'prior to her recent injury' the employer had determined that the Plaintiffs performance 'was not acceptable and not correctable and that [her] employment would have been terminated for those reasons anyway.' " ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 22, 26-27. Ms. Dacier is seeking relief for the Defendant's alleged discriminatory employment practices and retaliation. ECF No. 1-1. Procedure After satisfying administrative prerequisites, Ms. Dacier filed her complaint in The Rhode Island Superior Court. ECF No. 1-1. The Defendant removed the case to federal court. ECF No. 1-2. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 6. The Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 10. Standard of review "Like a battlefield surgeon sorting the hopeful from the hopeless, a motion to dismiss invokes a form of legal triage, a paring of viable claims from those doomed by law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) All persons within the state, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age, or country of ancestral origin, shall have, except as is otherwise provided or permitted by law, the same rights to make and enforce contracts, to inherit, purchase, to lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property ... (b) For purposes of this section, the right to “make and enforce contracts ...” shall include the making, performance, modification and termination of contracts and rights concerning real or personal property, and the enjoyment of all benefits, terms, and conditions of the contractual and other relationships.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“RICRA protects plaintiffs against any discrimination which interferes with the ‘benefits, terms, and conditions’ of the employment relationship — whether it takes the form of disparate impact, disparate treatment, retaliation, or harassment. The decision in Ward mandates that courts read the RICRA as broadly as possible — which means that if individuals discriminate in ways that violate the statute, then they must be liable under it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.