Griggs v. Duke Power Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3,425 federal appellate · 945 district · 610 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8,410 later decisions (195 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972)
3,425 federal appellate · 945 district · 610 state decisions — followed in 39 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGriggs v. Duke Power Co. (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · United States v. City of Chicago
Cited together with McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Washington v. Davis · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
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 8,410 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation.”
401 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
121 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“operate to 'freeze' the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.”
113 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.