Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 F.3d 33 - Smith v. Casellas

Smith v. Casellas’s Empirical Analysis

119 F.3d 33 · 1997

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
July 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 21 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Jordan v. Summers (2000), 657 F. Supp. 2d 180 - Peavey v. Holder (2009)

2 federal appellate · 21 district ·

240199720002010decided

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 Francis-Sobel v. University of Maine · McCottrell v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Ward v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Scheerer v. Rose State College · Jay Lee GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Congress has not authorized, either expressly or impliedly, a cause of action against the EEOC for the EEOC's alleged negligence or other malfeasance in processing an employment discrimination charge.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Congress intended the private right of action provided for in section 706(f)(1) of the Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) )-under which an aggrieved employee may bring a Title VII action directly against his or her employer-to serve as the remedy for any improper handling of a discrimination charge by the EEOC.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]mplying a cause of action against the EEOC contradicts this policy of individual enforcement of equal employment opportunity laws and could dissipate the limited resources of the [EEOC] in fruitless litigation with charging parties.”
    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.