Zawadowicz v. CVS. Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2614 (§ 104 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2617 (§ 107 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. · Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“generally, the sufficiency of notice is a matter for the jury.” Zawadowicz v. CVS Corp., 99 F.Supp.2d 518, 529 (D.N.J.2000) (Brotman, J.) (Citing Hopson v. Quitman Co. Hospital, 126 F.3d 635, 640 (5th Cir.1997)). See also, Price v. City of Fort Wayne, 117 F.3d 1022, 1026 (7th Cir.1997) (”
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.