Denison v. Swaco Geolograph Co.’s Empirical Analysis
941 F.2d 1416 · 1991
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 31 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Cone v. Longmont United Hospital Ass'n (1994), Elizabeth Perry v. Judy Woodward the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo (1999)
42 federal appellate · 31 district · 6 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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Hazelwood School District v. United States · Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust · Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a plaintiff may make out a prima facie case of discrimination in a discharge case by credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired, ..., or by her own testimony that her work was satisfactory, even when disputed by her employer, ..., or by evidence that she had held her position for a significant period of time,....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he plaintiff is not required to come forward with direct evidence of discriminatory intent. He is only required to show “that the employer’s proffered justification is unworthy of credence.” If the plaintiff establishes that the cited reasons for his termination were pretex-tual, the factfinder can infer that discrimination took place.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to set forth a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must ordinarily prove that “(1) the affected employee was within the protected age group; (2)[he] was doing satisfactory work; (3)[he] was discharged despite the adequacy of this work; and (4) a younger person replaced [him.]””
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.