Pfau v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
125 F.3d 927 · 1997
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Illinois, Inc. (1998), Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc. (1999)
14 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Brown v. General Services Administration · Henson v. City of Dundee
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has been used loosely in Title VII cases). The question before us is whether Bozeman's knowledge of McLeod's harassment of Williamson should be imputed to the City for purposes of holding that it knew or should have known of the harassment and therefore can be held liable for negligently failing to take prompt remedial action. Although, as noted, this area of law has not yet been fully developed, we believe the facts here present a situation in which liability is clearly appropriate. 15 The City points to testimony that the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a complainant against a federal employer relies on the same facts to establish a Title VII claim and a non-Title VII claim, the non-Title VII claim is not sufficiently distinct to avoid preemption.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bangura v. Shulkin“Title VII's preemptive effect as to claims against individual supervisors is coextensive with its preemptive effect as to claims against federal agencies.”
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.