Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Smith Vs. City of Jackson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 30, 2005

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

68 entries 5 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Markham Vs. Geller US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1981
    Relied / Followed
  2. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. Vs. Cline US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 2004
  3. Lorillard Vs. Pons US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1978
    Relied / Followed
  4. Trans World Airlines, Inc. Vs. Thurston US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1985
  5. Hazen Paper Co. Vs. Biggins US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1993
  6. Smith v. City
    Search
  7. Of Jackson - 03-1160 (2005) Syllabus October Term, 2004 Smith V. City
    Search
  8. Of Jackson Supreme Court of the United States Smith Et Al. V. City
    Search
  9. under the ADEA, but it assumed that the facts alleged by petitioners would entitle them to relief under Griggs v. Duke
    Search
  10. s Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
    Search
  11. opinion is a basis for deferring, pursuant to Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  12. in which Kennedy and Thomas, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., took no part in the decision of the case. Smith v. City
    Search
  13. Of Jackson - 03-1160 (2005) Opinion of the Court Smith V. City
    Search
  14. Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-1160 Azel P. Smith, Et Al., Petitioners V. City
    Search
  15. theory of recovery announced in Griggs v. Duke
    Search
  16. under the ADEA. Despite the age of the ADEA, it is a question that we have not yet addressed. See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins
    Search
  17. it is appropriate to presume that Congress intended that text to have the same meaning in both statutes. Northcross v. Board
    Search
  18. we have subsequently noted that our holding represented the better reading of the statutory text as well. See Watson v. Fort
    Search
  19. It was only after our decision in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins
    Search
  20. a). See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine
    Search
  21. quoting Teamsters v. United
    Search
  22. s holding in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
    Search
  23. s legitimate goal of retaining police officers. Cf. MacPherson v. University
    Search
  24. Footnote 4 Oscar Mayer & Co . v. Evans
    Search
  25. Western Air Lines, Inc . v. Criswell
    Search
  26. Footnote 8 B. Lindemann & D. Kadue, Age Discrimination in Employment Law 416, and n. 16 (2003) (citing Holt v. Gamewell
    Search
  27. Maresco v. Evans
    Search
  28. Blum v. Witco
    Search
  29. Wooden v. Board
    Search
  30. Monroe v. United
    Search
  31. Dace v. ACF
    Search
  32. Palmer v. United
    Search
  33. Faulkner v. Super
    Search
  34. MacPherson v. University
    Search
  35. Arnold v. United
    Search
  36. Service , 863 F. 2d 994, 998 (CADC 1988) (assuming disparate-impact theory)). Footnote 9 See, e.g., Mullin v. Raytheon
    Search
  37. Gantt v. Wilson
    Search
  38. instructive. Footnote 12 Exhibit C, Record 1192. Footnote 13 App. to Pet. for Cert. 41a. Smith v. City
    Search
  39. Of Jackson - 03-1160 (2005) Opinion of Scalia, J. Smith V. City
    Search
  40. reasonable views of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) pursuant to Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  41. Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984) . See General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline
    Search
  42. have a disparate impact on members of the protected age group must be justified as a business necessity. See Laugesen v. Anaconda
    Search
  43. Griggs v. Duke
    Search
  44. Even under the unduly constrained standards of agency deference recited in United States v. Mead
    Search
  45. Footnote 1 See, e.g. , Brief for EEOC as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees in Meacham v. Knolls
    Search
  46. Brief for EEOC as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellants Seeking Reversal in Sitko v. Goodyear
    Search
  47. EEOC v. McDonnell
    Search
  48. a)(2). Smith v. City
    Search
  49. Of Jackson - 03-1160 (2005) O'Connor, J., Concurring in Judgment Smith V. City
    Search
  50. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial