Robinson v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s Empirical Analysis
982 F.2d 892 · 1993
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 24 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co. (2000), Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co. (1997)
42 federal appellate · 24 district · 6 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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Jones v. Howard · City of Los Angeles Department of Water v. Manhart
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“mere passage of time is not legally conclusive proof against retaliation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“SEPTA "). When temporal proximity between protected activity and allegedly retaliatory conduct is missing, courts may look to the intervening period for other evidence of retaliatory animus. For example, in SEPTA, we stated: "The temporal proximity noted in other cases is missing here and we might be hard pressed to uphold the trial judge's finding [of causal link] were it not for the intervening pattern of antagonism that SEPTA demonstrated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3 provides: (a) Discrimination for making charges, testifying, assisting, or participating in enforcement proceedings. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... because [s]he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because [s]he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.