Castro v. Chicago Housing Authority’s Empirical Analysis
360 F.3d 721 · 2004
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Business Media, Inc. (2010), United States v. Carpenter (2007)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (§ 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (§ 5 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 260 · 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (§ 101 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 630 (§ 11 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 2 U.S.C. § 1315
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Brown v. Gardner · Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. · Venters v. City of Delphi · Carpenters District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If an employer which has violated this chapter proves to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission that violated this chapter was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of this chapter the court may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of the liability or penalty provided for in this section.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The CHA next argues that the class members waived their WARN claims through their unions’ settlement agreements. The CHA, however, failed to raise this affirmative defense in its responsive pleadings, and the district court denied the CHA’s motion for leave to file the additional defense, a decision we review for abuse of discretion. Because we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the CHA’s motion, there is no need to consider the merits of the CHA’s argument on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) requires that defendants raise all affirmative defenses that will defeat the allegations in the complaint in a responsive pleading. We have stated numerous times that if a defendant does not raise defenses at the time of filing an answer, those defenses are deemed waived. See, e.g., Perry v. Sullivan, 207 F.3d 379, 382 (7th Cir.2000)”
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.