Madrid v. United States, 459 U.S. 843 (1982). · Go Syfert
Madrid v. United States, 459 U.S. 843 (1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rona Fields v. Clark University, Rona Fields v. Clark University (ca1, 1987-05-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rona Fields v. Clark University, Rona Fields v. Clark University
1st Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Even if Felds did so, “[t]he burden on the defendant is only to rebut the plaintiff’s prima facie case; the burden of persuasion rests at all times with the plaintiff.” Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination, 671 F.2d 30 , 35 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 843 , 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 *935 (1982).
cited Cited "see" Louis v. BD. OF ED. OF CITY OF NEW YORK
E.D.N.Y · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination, 671 F.2d 30 , 36, (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 843 , 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 (1982).
discussed Cited "see" Wellington Mitchell v. Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce
D.C. Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination, 671 F.2d 30 , 36 (1st Cir.) (“In determining the propriety of a Rule 41(b) dismissal of a Title VII claim, the question is whether plaintiff had notice of defendant’s stated reasons for dismissal and an opportunity to demonstrate their pretextual character.”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 843 , 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 (1982); Flowers v. Crouch-Walker Corp., 552 F.2d 1277, 1282 (7th Cir.1977); see also Sime v. Trustees of California State University & Colleges, 526 F.2d 1112, 1114-15 (9th Cir.1975) (emphasizing plaintiff’s unused opportuni…
discussed Cited "see" Gary Garcia v. Richard Wilson and Martin Vigil (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination, 671 F.2d 30 , 33 & n. 3 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 843 , 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 (1982); Hussey v. Sullivan, 651 F.2d 74, 75-76 (1st Cir.1981).
discussed Cited "see" Frances Childs v. Local 18, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination of Massachusetts, 671 F.2d 30, 36-38 (1st Cir. 1982) (inability to perform job duties is a legitimate reason for dismissal), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 (1982).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Dysart
10th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Madrid, 673 F.2d 1114, 1120 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 96 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 ; United States v. Smith, 404 F.2d 720, 728 (6th Cir.); Bailey v. United States, 248 F.2d 558, 560 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 919 , 78 S.Ct. 351 , 2 L.Ed.2d 279 ; contra Lyles v. United States, 254 F.2d 725, 741-43 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Mark Joel Anthony
10th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Madrid, 673 F.2d 1114, 1123 (10th Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 843 , 103 S.Ct. 96 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 (1982); United States v. Coleman, 501 F.2d 342, 345 (10th Cir.1974); and United States v. Kienlen, 415 F.2d 557, 558 (10th Cir.1969).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shark v. Thompson
N.D. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination, 671 F.2d 30 , 35 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 843 , 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 (1982), disapproved on other grounds in Burnett v. Grattan, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2924 , 82 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984); United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers v. Lee National Corp., 513 F.2d 899, 900 (2d Cir.1975); American Plan Corp. v. State Loan & Finance Corp., 365 F.2d 635, 638 (3d Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1011 , 87 S.Ct. 719 , 17 L.Ed.2d 548 (1967); B’s Company, Inc. v. B.P.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ana M. UVIEDO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVES SASH & DOOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant (2×)
5th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination, etc., 671 F.2d 30 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 843 , 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 (1982); Gaballah v. Johnson, 629 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir.1980); Sime v. Trustees of the California State University and Colleges, 526 F.2d 1112 (9th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mary Craik, Julie Andrzejewski, Joan Hemmer, and June Goemer v. The Minnesota State University Board St. Cloud State University Garry Hays Charles J. Graham Lowell R. Gillett Kenneth A. Ames Frank G. Chesley Arnold C. Anderson Howard B. Casmey Thomas P. Coughlon Robert W. Irvine Donald G. Jackman Timothy J. Penny Mary Thornton Phillips Orrin v. Rinke Kennon v. Rothchild Derwyn L. Anderson Charles J. Boltuck Mary A. Boltuck Mary A. Dwyer Edwin C. Hark Douglas A. Kleiber Jack Knutson William Kukuk Albert H. Krueger David Lesar Albert G. Luker John E. Mason Gerald C. Mertens Robert J. Murphy Dennis Nunes Eugene Perkins Mary L. Petersen Robert R. Prochnow Arthur J. Redding Eugene Rosenthal Joseph B. Steen Dorothy D. Wollin and Inter- Faculty Organization/minnesota Education Association
8th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
Aikens thus makes clear that the "shifting burdens" approach of McDonnell Douglas is not a prescription for refereeing carefully timed volleys of proof and counterproof, but rather " 'merely a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination.' " Id., quoting Furnco, 438 U.S. at 577 , 98 S.Ct. at 2949 ; see also Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination, 671 F.2d 30 , 35-36 (1st Cir.) (allocation of burdens goes to analysis rather than timing of proof), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 …
cited Cited "see, e.g." Bailey v. Binyon
N.D. Ill. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Donnell v. General Motors Corporation, 576 F.2d 1292 , 1296 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 844 , 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74 L.Ed.2d 88 (1982); Fed.Reg.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Craik v. Minnesota State University Board
8th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
Aikens thus makes clear that the “shifting burdens” approach of McDonnell Douglas is not a prescription for refereeing carefully timed volleys of proof and counterproof, but rather “ ‘merely a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination.’ ” Id., quoting Furnco, 438 U.S. at 577 , 98 S.Ct. at 2949 ; see also Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination, 671 F.2d 30 , 35-36 (1st Cir.) (allocation of burdens goes to analysis rather than timing of proof), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 843 , 103 S.Ct. 97 , 74…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Madrid
v.
United States
No. 81-6726.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1982.
459 U.S. 843
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.