942 F. Supp. 2d 432 - Leshinsky v. Telvent GIT, S.A.’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 181 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (§ 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 42 U.S.C. § 5851 · 49 U.S.C. § 42121 · 5 U.S.C. § 2302
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Clark County School District v. Breeden · Durland v. United States · Michigan v. Bryant
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) to provide information ... regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341 [mail fraud], 1343 [wire fraud], 1344 [bank fraud], or 1348 [securities fraud], any rule or regulation of the [SEC], or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information ... is provided to . (C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct) ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a plaintiff need only demonstrate that a rational factfinder could determine that [the] Plaintiff has made [her] prima facie case. Assuming a plaintiff does so, summary judgment is appropriate only when, construing all of the facts in the employee’s favor, there is no genuine dispute that the record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that the adverse action would have been taken in the absence of protected behavior. Thus, the defendant’s burden under Section 806 [SOX’s whistleblower section] is notably more than under other federal employee protection statutes, thereby making summary judgment against plaintiffs in Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation cases a more difficult proposition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t would ... be unfair to expect a plaintiff seeking to inform his boss of financial misbehavior to have a working knowledge of the United States Code.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.