Hartman’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
27 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Creveling v. Government Employees Insurance (2003), Pigford v. Glickman (1998)
27 district · 9 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
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Sosna v. Iowa
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) discrimination (ii) against a particular group (iii) of which the plaintiff is a member, plus (iv) some additional factor that `permit[s] the court to infer that members of the class suffered from a common policy of discrimination.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Conceptually, there is a wide gap between (a) an individual’s claim that he has been [discriminated against], and his otherwise unsupported allegation that the company has a policy of discrimination, and (b) the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury as that individual, such that the individual’s claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact .... For respondent to bridge that gap, he must prove much more than the validity of his own claim. Id. at 157-58 , 102 S.Ct. 2364 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In other words, we are unwilling to hold as a matter of law, that a named plaintiff who unsuccessfully applied for one job can never represent an employee who unsuccessfully applied for another job simply because the application process for the second job included a separate and different element. Indeed such a restriction would permit an employer to defeat the broad enforcement of Title VII simply by administering different objective tests as part of the application process for each job ... The fact that the ... USIA’s hiring of foreign service officers differs in some respects from hiring of civil service officers, does not in itself preclude the named plaintiffs from representing the entire class.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hartman v. Duffy
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.