Brennan v. King’s Empirical Analysis
139 F.3d 258 · 1998
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 36 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp. (2005), Petruska v. Gannon University (2006)
12 federal appellate · 36 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (§ 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Vaca v. Sipes · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Rehabilitation Act derives its procedural requirements from Title VI, which does not have an exhaustion requirement”). 32 . See supra note 2. 33 . We have observed that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Defendants]’ arbitration arguments do not constitute relevant defenses before the EEOC. As the Supreme Court recently noted, “An individual ... claimant subject to an arbitration agreement will still be free to file a charge with the EEOC, even though the claimant is not able to institute a private judicial action.” We see no reason to suppose that the Massachusetts courts would treat [the plaintiffl’s state-law discrimination claims differently. Therefore, we do not find that [defendants] waived their arbitration defenses by their failure — if failure there was — to raise before either of the administrative agencies contentions that would not have been pertinent defenses in such a forum.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellees have ... sought to invoke the exhaustion doctrine in order to require Brennan to exhaust potential contractual remedies. With respect to Brennan’s federal and state civil rights claims, we find no ground to require this type of exhaustion. The federal statutes and the Massachusetts constitutional and statutory provisions invoked by Brennan reveal no indication that potential contractual avenues of relief must be pursued prior to suit. Furthermore, appel-lees have not cited, and we have not found, any cases suggesting that such a requirement inheres in the relevant federal or state provisions.”
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.