D.C. Circuit· 5/6/2005
Murray, Lucy v. Gilmore, David
Citations
- 406 F.3d 708
- 365 U.S. App. D.C. 372
- 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7849
- 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,161
- 95 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1298
- 2005 WL 1047588
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that \a [selection] within the same protected class cuts strongly against any inference of discrimination\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Rogers, Tatel, Garland
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
133 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Czekalski, Loni v. Peters, MaryD.C. Circuit· 2007-02-02· cited 674×
- Woodruff, Phillip v. Peters, MaryD.C. Circuit· 2007-04-06· cited 393×
- Broderick, Catherine v. Donaldson, WilliamD.C. Circuit· 2006-02-10· cited 276×
- Chantal Attias v. CareFirst, Inc.D.C. Circuit· 2017-08-01· cited 210×
- Smith v. District of ColumbiaD.C. Circuit· 2005-12-06· cited 207×
- Harris v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer AuthorityD.C. Circuit· 2015-06-23· cited 206×
- Jackson v. GonzalesD.C. Circuit· 2007-08-10· cited 189×
- North American Butterfly Association v. Chad F. WolfD.C. Circuit· 2020-10-13· cited 115×
- Fields, Beverly v. Off Eddie JohnsonD.C. Circuit· 2006-08-18· cited 91×
- Na'im v. ClintonDistrict of Columbia· 2009-06-19· cited 87×
- Sunday Iyoha v. Architect of the CapitolD.C. Circuit· 2019-07-02· cited 82×
- Lewis v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2009-09-14· cited 77×
- Glass v. LaHoodDistrict of Columbia· 2011-05-20· cited 73×
- Timothy Jeffries v. William BarrD.C. Circuit· 2020-07-14· cited 65×
- Akonji v. Unity Healthcare, Inc.District of Columbia· 2007-04-24· cited 61×
- Na'Im v. RiceDistrict of Columbia· 2008-09-22· cited 45×
- Dukore v. District of ColumbiaD.C. Circuit· 2015-08-25· cited 45×
- Oliver-Simon v. NicholsonDistrict of Columbia· 2005-08-25· cited 43×
- Bonnette v. ShinsekiDistrict of Columbia· 2012-11-30· cited 41×
- HOLMES-MARTIN v. SebeliusDistrict of Columbia· 2010-03-17· cited 38×
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court· 1973-05-14· cited 38,518×
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court· 2000-06-12· cited 12,455×
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1966-06-06· cited 1,352×
- Etim U. Aka v. Washington Hospital CenterD.C. Circuit· 1998-10-09· cited 1,302×
- University of Tennessee v. ElliottSupreme Court· 1986-07-07· cited 1,063×
- Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence AgencyD.C. Circuit· 2004-01-30· cited 1,014×
- Louis A. Carducci v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary, U.S. Treasury DepartmentD.C. Circuit· 1983-08-12· cited 680×
- Brown, Regina C. v. Brody, Kenneth D.D.C. Circuit· 1999-12-21· cited 670×
- Waterhouse v. District of ColumbiaD.C. Circuit· 2002-08-13· cited 605×
- Stella, Marie v. v. Mineta, Norman Y.D.C. Circuit· 2002-03-29· cited 398×
- Coramae Ella Gary v. James Edward LongD.C. Circuit· 1995-07-28· cited 325×
- City of Waukesha v. Environmental Protection AgencyD.C. Circuit· 2003-02-25· cited 306×
- Steven G. Rothmeier v. Investment Advisers, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Noel P. Rahn, an IndividualEighth Circuit· 1996-06-07· cited 296×
- Joseph L. RAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CF INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, and Robert C. Liuzzi, Defendants-AppelleesSeventh Circuit· 1994-12-23· cited 191×
- James R. LOWE, Appellant, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., AppelleeEighth Circuit· 1992-04-28· cited 173×
- Robert Franklin v. District of ColumbiaD.C. Circuit· 1999-03-22· cited 101×
- Dunaway v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersD.C. Circuit· 2002-11-15· cited 95×
- Murray v. GilmoreDistrict of Columbia· 2002-10-30· cited 2×
- Murray v. GilmoreDistrict of Columbia· 2002-09-30· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.