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 7 cases, quoted by 48 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 Brown v. General Services Administration.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brown v. General Services Administration Anchor | green | “exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination.” | 15 |
| 2 | Oscar Lechuga and Rosantina Lechuga v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Reynolds Metals Company | green | “conclusory statements in an affidavit do not provide facts that will counter summary judgment evidence, and testimony based on conjecture alone is insufficient to raise an issue to defeat summary judgment.” | 13 |
| 3 | Texas Manufactured Housing Ass'n v. Nederland | green | “we review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same criteria used by the district court in the first instance.” | 8 |
| 4 | Ellert v. University of Texas, at Dallas | green | “that her reaction to the harassment affected tangible aspects of the terms and conditions of her employment, with her acceptance or rejection of the harassment being either an express or implied condition to receipt of a benefit to or the cause of a tangible adverse effect on th…” | 3 |
| 5 | Hamilton v. Rodgers | green | “was instrumental and mainly responsible for the proper procedural handling of the termination of ms. pfau.” | 3 |
| 6 | Jasper C. Rowe v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services | green | “not sufficiently distinct to avoid” | 3 |
| 7 | Freddy Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America, D/B/A Ozark Mahoney & Co. | green | “delegated the employer's traditional rights, such as hiring and firing.” | 3 |
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.