Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Continental Air Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
149 federal appellate · 36 district · 106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 426 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Perez. v. Campbell (1971), Silver v. New York Stock Exchange (1963)
149 federal appellate · 36 district · 106 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 49 U.S.C. § 1301 · 49 U.S.C. § 1302
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Bolling v. Sharpe · Hines v. Davidowitz · Parker v. Brown
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 426 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To hold that a state statute identical in purpose with a federal statute is invalid under the Supremacy Clause, we must be able to conclude that the purpose of the federal statute would to some extent be frustrated by the state statute.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is even less reason to say that Congress, in passing the Railway Labor Act and making certain of its provisions applicable to air carriers, intended to bar States from protecting employees against racial discrimination. No provision in the Act even mentions discrimination in hiring. It is true that in several cases we have held that the exclusive bargaining agents authorized by the Act must not use their powers to discriminate against minority groups whom they are supposed to represent. And we have held that employers too may be enjoined from carrying out provisions of a discriminatory bargaining agreement. But the duty the Act imposes is one of fair representation and it is imposed upon the union. The employer is merely prohibited from aiding the union in breaching its duty. Nothing in the Railway Labor Act or in our cases suggests that the Act places upon an air carrier a duty to engage only in fair nondiscriminatory hiring practices. The Act has never been used for that purpose, and we cannot hold it bars Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is impossible for us to believe that the Executive intended for its orders to regulate air carrier discrimination among employees so persuasively as to preempt state legislation intended to accomplish the same purpose.”
2 later decisions 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.