Kenworthy v. Conoco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
979 F.2d 1462 · 1992
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 34 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1999), Elizabeth Perry v. Judy Woodward the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo (1999)
38 federal appellate · 34 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Brewster v. Derwinski
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 100 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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ascertain! ] whether that verdict is supported by substantial evidence when the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Substantial evidence, while something less than the weight of the evidence, is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if different conclusions also might be supported by the evidence. Under this standard, it is not the function of the appeals court to reverse merely if it believes the evidence might have supported a different verdict. If there is an evidentiary basis upon which the verdict can be supported, the jury’s determinations will be left undisturbed, even where there is substantial contradictory evidence that could have supported an opposite verdict____[A] jury finding based on sharply conflicting evidence is binding on appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“raises serious problems under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, which mandates a full and fair opportunity for a plaintiff to demonstrate pretext. Short-circuiting the analysis at the prima facie stage frustrates a plaintiffs ability to establish that the defendant’s proffered reasons were pretextual and/or that age was the determining factor”
2 later decisions 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.