Kizer v. Children's Learning Center’s Empirical Analysis
962 F.2d 608 · 1992
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Warren III v. City of Carlsbad (1995), Rush v. McDonald's Corp. (1992)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Stafford v. Oklahoma · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b)(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary-- (A) a judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. (B) a judge may also designate a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Supreme Court set forth the allocation of the burdens of proof for a Title VII discriminatory treatment case in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 [, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 ] (1973). The plaintiff has the initial burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. ‘A plaintiff alleging a discriminatory firing need show only that [s/he]- was fired from a job for which [s/he] was qualified while others not in the protected class were treated more favorably.’ To meet her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, [the plaintiff] must therefore show both that she was qualified for and satisfactorily performing the duties of her job.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Id. at 932 (emphasis added). 17 The defendants contend that because the district court determined that nothing in the record supported a claim of race discrimination for purposes of granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate. The fact that the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment does not require the district court to also find that the plaintiff filed suit with”
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.