Thurman v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.3d 352 · 2004
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Novak v. Metrohealth Medical Center (2007), Atlantic Textiles v. Avondale Inc. (2007)
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Williams v. General Motors Corp. · Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp. · Ford v. Hamilton Investments, 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I agree that any claim or lawsuit relating to my service with Chrysler Corporation or any of its subsidiaries must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. I waive any statute of limitations to the contrary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nothing in the quoted language bars the employer from including a waiver of statute of limitations in an employment contract. Therefore, the six-month statute of limitations contained in the employment application is not superseded by the collective bargaining agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Logan v. Casino“the six-month limitations period gave [Plaintiffs] a sufficient opportunity to investigate and file an action, as well as ascertain the damages suffered[,]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Logan v. Casino
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.