Jakubiak v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
101 F.3d 23 · 1996
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Teemac v. Henderson (2002), Hill v. Michelin North America, Inc. (2001)
7 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Delaware State College v. Ricks · Jackson v. Bair · Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The agency or the Commission shall extend the 45-day time limit ... when the individual shows that he or she was not notified of the time limits and was otherwise not aware of them, that he or she did not know and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence he or she was prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control from contacting the counsel- or within the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency or Commission. § 1614.105(a)(2).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cooley v. Goss“when the individual shows [ (1) ] that he or she was not notified of the time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, [(2)] that he or she did not know and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory ... personnel action occurred, [ (3) ] that despite due diligence he or she was prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control from contacting the counselor within the time limits, or [(4)] for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency or the Commission.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Summary judgment is proper only if no material facts are in dis- pute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.