Norman v. Missouri Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
414 F.2d 73 · 1969
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2007 · most notably Chandler v. Roudebush (1976), United States v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. (1971)
44 federal appellate · 8 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 702 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 152 (Railway Labor Act)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Ford Motor Co v. Huffman International Union United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implementworkers of America Ci · Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by its express terms makes racial and other discrimination in employment and employment opportunities unlawful. This statute creates additional grounds for complaints based upon racially discriminatory practices of an employer. If the Supreme Court would give effect to a state anti-discrimination statute as in Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Continental Airlines, Inc., supra, [ 372 U.S. 714 , 83 S.Ct. 1022 , 10 L.Ed.2d 84 ], it would likely give effect to a federal statute barring racial discrimination in employment as is set forth in Title VII § 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Railway Labor Act is not basically a fair employment practice act nor has it been utilized as such. Its basic purpose is to foster and promote collective bargaining between employees and employers with a provision for continuity of service to the public while setting up a detailed and elaborate procedure for the resolution of major and minor disputes that occur in the operation of the railroads. On the other hand Title VII of the Civil Rights Act specifically prohibits racial and other discrimination in employment and employment opportunities. "We, therefore, do not think the plaintiffs are confined to their administrative remedies, which appear without further examination to be inadequate, under the Railway Labor Act. The enactment of Title VII provides a more extensive and broader ground for relief, specifically oriented towards the elimi”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he train porters in a class action contended that they were relegated to the class of train porters solely because of race. We stated at 906 of 361 F.2d that the District Court ‘failed to find hostile racial discrimination.’ We viewed the issue on appeal as whether ‘the District Court has jurisdiction and power, to require by appropriate order, that all Negro employees of Frisco, now in the craft or class of train porter, be placed in the craft or class of brakemen.’ Id. Both of these cases were viewed within the context of jurisdictional disputes or craft classifications constituting grievances solely cognizable under the Railway Labor Act. The applicability of Title VII of the Civil Bights Act to the plaintiffs’ complaint has not been decided by the courts. We hold, that Nunn and Howard are not a bar to the present action.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.