Martinez v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
347 F.3d 1208 · 2003
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 65 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably United States v. Labastida-Segura (2005), Weber v. Battista (2007)
29 federal appellate · 65 district · 4 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 National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Brown v. General Services Administration · Ingels v. Thiokol Corp. · Lyons v. England · Shanahan v. City of Chicago
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We agree with the government that such unexhausted claims involving discrete employment actions are no longer viable. Morgan abrogates the continuing violation doctrine as previously applied to claims of discriminatory or retaliatory actions by employers, and replaces it with the teaching that each discrete incident of such treatment constitutes its own unlawful employment practice for which administrative remedies must be exhausted.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“like or reasonably related to the allegations of the EEOC charge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“I have been employed with the above named employer since 1986. I have worked in various positions. In the past three years, I have applied for seven jobs. My most recent applications were October 2005, when I applied for the Superintendent of Water, January 2006, when I applied for the Supervisor of Water Distribution, and March 2006, when I applied for the Supervisor of Meters. I believe I was not selected for these positions because of my gender, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.”
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.