Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.3d 463 · 1994
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Grayson v. K Mart Corp. (1996), Starceski 94-3208 v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation 94-3182 (1995)
24 federal appellate · 5 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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 29 U.S.C. § 256 · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Lorillard v. Pons · Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... former Section 626(e)(1) of ADEA incorporated the two year statute of limitations for non-willful violations set forth in section 6 of the Portal-to-Portal Act. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 626 (e)(1) (West 1985). The Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166, Title I, § 115, 105 Stat. 1079 , amended Section 626(e)(1) of ADEA. Under the current version of Section 626(e), effective November 21, 1991, section 6 of the Portal-to-Portal Act is no longer expressly incorporated and the statute of limitations for an age discrimination action is 90 days after receipt of a notice that “a charge filed with the [EEOC] under this chapter is dismissed or the proceedings of the [EEOC] are otherwise terminated by the [EEOC].” 29 U.S.C.A. § 626 (e) (effective November 21, 1991) (West Supp.1993).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“practical and pragmatic device[] to spare the courts from litigation of stale claims, and the citizen from being put to his defense after memories have faded, witnesses have died or disappeared, and evidence has been lost.” Secondly, limitations periods”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the district court, pursuant to its case management powers, promptly sets a reasonable cut-off date for closing the opt-in class, the scope of the suit is limited and made known to the defendant employer within a reasonable time after the claim seeking class relief is filed. Such a controlled tolling of ADEA’s statute of limitations seems to us to accomplish fully the intent of Congress without inflicting any untoward inequity on an employer who knows before the statute runs that he is dealing with a representative class action.”
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.