Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Janet M. Merillat v. Metal Spinners, Incorporated.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Janet M. Merillat v. Metal Spinners, Incorporated Anchor | green | “to establish one of four statutory defenses.” | 6 |
| 2 | Doris M. Ineichen v. Ameritech | green | “parties cannot thwart the purposes of rule 56 by creating 'sham' issues of fact with affidavits that contradict their prior depositions.” | 4 |
| 3 | Doris M. Ineichen v. Ameritech | green | “sham' issues of fact with affidavits that contradict their prior depositions.” | 3 |
| 4 | Warren v. Solo Cup Co. | green | “prohibits employers from paying employees different wages based on no. 20-1406 9 gender.” | 3 |
| 5 | Marybeth Lauderdale v. Illinois Department of Human S | green | “basing pay on prior wages could be discriminatory if sex discrimination led to the lower prior wages ... .” | 3 |
| 6 | Dasgupta v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents | green | “an untimely title vii suit cannot be revived by pointing to effects within the limitations period of unlawful acts that occurred earlier.” | 3 |
| 7 | Dasgupta v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents | green | “cannot be revived by pointing to effects within the limitations period of unlawful acts that occurred earlier.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.