Mize v. Jefferson City Board of Education’s Empirical Analysis
93 F.3d 739 · 1996
Citation profile
38 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 313 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co. (1997), McDowell v. Brown (2004)
38 federal appellate ·
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. § 794
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · Tw Electrical Service Inc Nn v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Association
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 313 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[the] court need not permit a case to go to a jury ... when the inferences that are drawn from the evidence, and upon which the nonmovant relies, are 'implausible.'”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the nonmoving party produces direct evidence of a material fact, the court may not assess the credibility of this evidence nor weigh against it any conflicting evidence presented by the moving party. The nonmoving party’s evidence must be taken as true. Inferences from the nonmoving party’s “specific facts” as to other material facts, however, may be drawn only if they are reasonable in view of other undisputed background or contextual facts and only if such inferences are otherwise permissible under the governing substantive law. This inquiry ensures that a “genuine” issue of material fact exists for the factfinder to resolve at trial.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here the non-movant presents direct evidence that, if believed by the jury, would be sufficient to win at trial, summary judgment is not appropriate even where the movant presents conflicting evidence.”
5 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.