Davis v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
251 F.3d 227 · 2001
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 27 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Gonzalez v. El Dia, Inc. (2002), Ramrez Rodrguez v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc
11 federal appellate · 27 district · 6 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 Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · O'Rourke v. City of Providence · Lawton v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co. of America · Provencher v. CVS Pharmacy, Division of Melville Corp. · Ahmed v. Rosenblatt
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here a plaintiff fails to present arguments to the district court in opposition to a defendant's motion for summary judgment, we have refused to consider those arguments for the first time on appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“According to the so-called scope of the investigation rule, the exact wording of the charge of discrimination need not presage with literary exactitude the judicial pleadings which may follow. Plaintiffs have been allowed to allege a claim in a complaint where the factual statement in [the] written charge should have alerted the agency to an alternative basis of discrimination, and should have been investigated ... regardless of whether it was actually investigated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“charge filed with the EEOC in a jurisdiction having a designated [state] agency, as Massachusetts does, is automatically referred to that state agency.... Therefore, claims filed with the MCAD or the EEOC are effectively filed with both 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.