Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 F.3d 631 - Koger v. Reno

Koger v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Bickerstaff v. Vassar College (1999), Paquin v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n (1997)

12 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions

190199620002010decided

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 · Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust · Connecticut v. Teal · Bazemore v. Friday

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

  1. “a defendant cannot undermine a regression analysis simply by pointing to variables not taken into account that might conceivably have pulled the analysis's [sic] sting ...[,] Bazemore [does not] require acceptance of regressions from which clearly major variables have been omitted--such as education and prior work experience.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “not resolve issues raised so fecklessly.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the defendant must come forward with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.... [I]f the defendant meets its burden of production, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to persuade the fact finder that the defendant’s reason for its action is a mere pretext for discrimination and (thus) that the defendant acted with “discriminatory intent.””
    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.