Doss v. Jamco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Mitchem v. Counts (2000), Dray v. New Market Poultry Products, Inc. (1999)
3 federal appellate · 43 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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville · Brown v. Lukhard · Miller v. Sevamp, Inc. · Lockhart v. Commonwealth Education Systems Corp. · Jones v. Conwell
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in amending the Act by adding subsection D to Va.Code § 2.1-725 in 1995, the General Assembly plainly manifested its intention to alter the common law rule with respect to “[c]auses of action based upon the public policies reflected in [the Act].” (Emphasis added [in Doss ]). And, just as plainly, the General Assembly altered the common law rule by providing that such causes of action “shall be exclusively limited to those actions, procedures and remedies, if any, afforded by applicable federal or state civil rights statutes or local ordinances.” (Emphasis added [in Doss ]).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Causes of action based upon the public policies reflected in this chapter shall be exclusively limited to those actions, procedures and remedies, if any, afforded by applicable federal or state civil rights statutes or local ordinances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Bowman and Lockhart , the plaintiffs, who were permitted to pursue causes of action against their former employers, identified specific Virginia statutes in which, the General Assembly had established public policies that the former employers had contravened. Unlike the plaintiffs in Bowman and Lockhart , Brooks does not have a cause of action for wrongful discharge because he is unable to identify any Virginia statute establishing a public policy that Lawrence Chrysler violated.”
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.