107 F.3d -566 - Robinson v. Dalton’s Empirical Analysis
107 F.3d 1018 · 1997
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2013
13 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · McKart v. United States · Bowen v. City of New York · Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the district court in this case described its preliminary evaluation as “jurisdictional,” this court has previously determined that questions of whether a plaintiff has timely exhausted the administrative remedies in Title VII actions “are in the nature of statutes of limitation. They do not affect the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Moreover, in Title VII cases courts are permitted in certain limited circumstances to equitably toll filing requirements, even if there has been a complete failure to file, which necessarily precludes characterizing such requirements as “jurisdictional.” It follows that the ... motion to dismiss should have been treated under Rule 12(b)(6).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he parameters of the civil action in the district court are defined by the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination, including new acts which occurred during the pendency of proceedings before the [EEOC].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“promote administrative efficiency, ‘respect[ ] executive autonomy by allowing an agency the opportunity to correct its own errors,’ provide courts with the benefit of an agency’s expertise, and serve judicial economy by having the agency compile the factual record.”
2 later decisions 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.