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 6 cases, quoted by 82 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 Pierce v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pierce v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice Anchor | green | “adverse employment actions are discharges, demotions, refusals to hire, refusals to promote, and reprimands.” | 25 |
| 2 | LaPierre v. Benson Nissan, Inc. | green | “claims of racial discrimination brought under 1981 are governed by the same evidentiary framework applicable to claims of employment discrimination brought under title vii.” | 21 |
| 3 | Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross- v. Douglas Leon SUMRALL, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Cross- | green | “a motion for judgment as a matter of law ... in an action tried by jury is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict.” | 18 |
| 4 | Charles I. Dorsett v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges & Universities | green | “decisions concerning teaching assignments, pay increases, administrative matters, and departmental procedures,” | 8 |
| 5 | Benningfield v. The City of Houston | green | “declined to expand the list of actionable actions, noting that some things are not actionable even though they have the effect of chilling the exercise of free speech.” | 4 |
| 6 | Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross- v. Douglas Leon SUMRALL, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Cross- | green | “a jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and those inferences may constitute sufficient proof to support a verdict.” | 3 |
| 7 | P. Sidney Neuwirth, D.D.S. v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry | green | “if state action is so arbitrary and capricious as to be irrational, its infringement on a constitutionally protected interest may violate substantive due process rights.” | 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.