/f3d/931/0786-01

Coverage and quality

1 annotation blocks; 1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases with counted merits instances; 0 excluded blocks.

Frozen DB: 165 case–law contexts. Source tree: 300 CASE files. This snapshot does not imply full current repository coverage.

Legal review status: unavailable to this view.

Counting rules and source integrity

Counted instances require applied citation role, merits scope, and a reached holding. Procedural, not-reached, comparator, and other context remains visible but is excluded from counts.

Source hash and exact-offset checks verify quotation integrity only; they do not establish legal correctness, model confidence, exhaustive coverage, or approval. Zero means no counted annotation in this snapshot.

Database snapshot SHA-256: b8882353247abdd6e20d4e22922c166d68ccb8e2da50e13e0162a35c316318f8. 3301 source quotations verified across this snapshot.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019-07-30

Original case on neochart.com

Case and law context

29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634

Role: applied; posture: appeal from summary judgment for employer; result: claimant-lost; claim:

Instances and excluded annotation blocks

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
Case	Element	Holding and scope	Variant	Exact source quotations
/f3d/931/0786-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019	Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment	not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The court applies the ADEA but-for requirement and finds insufficient pretext evidence. This annotation is the ADEA component; Title VII/state-law components are not treated as identical legal standards.	pretext/inadequate-qualification-comparison	But there is evidence of awkward interviews and some unsavvy conduct, which is at least an arguable basis for Nationwide's purported motives. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0786-01`; Unicode character offsets [29089:29230] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `bd7d6abcc578d40db50a1a656b87abe9556b06a3f8b2abc86266be2f2a7da446`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) She needed to use the qualifications comparison evidence to prove pretext, and she did not introduce enough evidence to meet her burden in that way. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0786-01`; Unicode character offsets [29231:29379] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `bd7d6abcc578d40db50a1a656b87abe9556b06a3f8b2abc86266be2f2a7da446`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment that Heisler failed to meet her burden of production to show pretext. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0786-01`; Unicode character offsets [29380:29502] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `bd7d6abcc578d40db50a1a656b87abe9556b06a3f8b2abc86266be2f2a7da446`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations recorded from this case