Ring v. First Interstate Mortgage, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
984 F.2d 924 · 1993
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. (2002), Victor H. Sparrow, Iii, v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al. (2000)
32 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 3602 (§ 802 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3605 (§ 805 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3613 (§ 813 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Conley v. Gibson · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Hishon v. King & Spalding
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“measure a plaintiff's complaint against a particular formulation of the prima facie case at the pleading stage.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There are two practical reasons why the prima facie case is an inappropriate pleading standard in a discrimination case. First, ... the McDonnell Douglas ... analysis applies to cases in which a plaintiff has no direct evidence of discrimination; if direct evidence of an intent to discriminate does exist, plaintiff may be able to prevail without proving all of the elements of a prima facie case of disparate treatment. Second, ... the prima facie ease that a plaintiff must prove under the McDonnell Douglas ... analysis varies depending upon the facts of the particular case — thus, there is no “inflexible formulation” that can be defined at the pleading stage of the lawsuit.”
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.