Hashimoto v. Dalton’s Empirical Analysis
118 F.3d 671 · 1997
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 19 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Brooks v. City of San Mateo (2000), William J. Ray v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General (2000)
45 federal appellate · 19 district · 3 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Farrar v. Hobby
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“goes to the issue of damages, not liability.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is little question that the dissemination of adverse employment references can constitute a violation of Title VII if motivated by discriminatory intent. Thus, it is beside the point that Lowery's dissemination of the negative job reference was not the reason Hashimoto did not get the job with the Army.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the ADEA anti-retaliation provision is 'parallel to the anti-retaliation provision contained in Title VII,' and ... ‘cases interpreting the latter provision are frequently relied upon in interpreting the former.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Poland v. Chertoff
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.