Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 930 FSUPP 1428 - Snell v. Reno Hilton Resort

Snell v. Reno Hilton Resort’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
August 2006
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Farrar v. Hobby

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

  1. “Ms. Snell, the prevailing party, has achieved only partial or limited success. The jury did find that defendant discriminated against plaintiff. Because the jury also concluded that the adverse employment actions would have occurred even absent the impermissible discrimination, as a matter of law plaintiff was not entitled to damages or back pay. Because this litigation only concerned the past actions of the defendant towards this plaintiff, and the plaintiff no longer works for the defendant, injunctive relief was not appropriate. Plaintiffs success is nothing more than the satisfaction of having her belief that she was the victim of illegal employment discrimination validated by the jury’s verdict. Under Hensley , if the court were consider only the “level of success” achieved by plaintiff, the fee award would be de minimis.”
    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.