Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 276 USAPPDC 167 - Dougherty v. Barry

Dougherty v. Barry’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 1989
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “by affirmative misconduct on the part of appellants. Id. at 151, 104 S.Ct. at 1726; cf. Rozen v. District of Columbia, 702 F.2d 1202 , 1204 (D.C.Cir.1983) (excusing plaintiff's delay in filing suit because EEOC had instructed him to wait until he received notice from Justice Department). No such factors exist here. Appellees were”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “full representation, in jobs at all salary and wage levels and scales, in accordance with the representation of all groups in the available work force of the District of Columbia, including, but not limited to, Blacks, Whites, Spanish-speaking Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, females, and males.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The revisions [to the regulation] ... make clear that the Commission will not issue a second notice of right to sue anew in situations where the original 90 days period in which to bring suit has expired prior to the notice of intent to reconsider....”
    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.