Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 960 F.2d 314 - Levin v. Analysis & Technology, Inc.

Levin v. Analysis & Technology, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

960 F.2d 314 · 1992

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 14 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. (1995), Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp. (1994)

15 federal appellate · 14 district ·

560199220002010decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · Kashif v. United States

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

  1. “(1) was a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was discharged; and (4) the discharge occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prims facie ease of discrimination. Sec ond, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant “to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'raises an inference of discrimination only because we presume these acts, if otherwise unexplained, are more likely than not based on the consideration of impermissible factors.'”
    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.