Bland v. New York’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2021
2 federal appellate ·
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. § 1738 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (§ 101 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 402 · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Allen v. McCurry
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the role of the unnamed party could through reasonable effort by the complainant. have been ascertained at the time of the filing of the EEOC complaint; (2) whether, under the circumstances, the interests of a named party are so similar as the unnamed party’s that for the purpose of obtaining voluntary conciliation and compliance it would be unnecessary to include the unnamed party in the EEOC proceedings; (3) whether its absence from the EEOC proceedings resulted in actual prejudice to the unnamed party; and (4) whether the unnamed party has in some way represented to the complainant that its relationship with the complainant is to be through the named party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) whether the elected official has plenary powers of appointment and removal, (2) whether the person in the position at issue is personally accountable to only that elected official, (3) whether the person in the position at issue represents the elected official in the eyes of the public, (4) whether the elected official exercises a considerable amount of control over the position, (5) the level of the position within the organization’s chain of command, and (6) the actual intimacy of the working relationship between the elected official and the person filling the position.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[e]ven if the Commission's factual findings were entitled to preclu-sive effect here, the Commission’s findings would not necessarily entitle plaintiff to judg ment here because they do not necessarily ‘prove or disprove, without more, an essential element of any of the claims set forth in the complaint.' ” Id. (citation omitted). These factors do not apply to Greenberg’s hearing before the WCB. 17 . Where federal law does not expressly limit the weight given to the determinations of state administrative agencies, such as in § 1983 actions,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.