Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 419 F. Supp. 2d 775 - Mayes v. Moore

419 F. Supp. 2d 775 - Mayes v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
March 2016
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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)

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Monge v. California · Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth · United States v. Bestfoods

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “1) whether the role of the unnamed party could through reasonable effort by the complainant be ascertained at the time of the filing of the EEOC complaint; 2) whether, under the circumstances, the interests of a named [party] are so similar as the unnamed party’s that for the purpose of obtaining voluntary conciliation and compliance it would be unnecessary to include the unnamed party in the EEOC proceedings; 3) whether its absence from the EEOC proceedings resulted in actual prejudice to the interests of the unnamed party; and 4) whether the unnamed party has in some way represented to the complainant that its relationship with the complainant is to be through the named party.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he Fourth Circuit applies federal standards to a veil-piercing claim under other federal statutes because 'veil[ piercing] determines who is liable' under the statute[.]” Mayes v. Moore, 419 F.Supp.2d 775 , 782 n.5 (M.D.N.C. 2006) (quoting Thomas v. Peacock, 39 F.3d 493, 502-03 (4th Cir. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 516 U.S. 349 , 116 S.Ct. 862 , 133 L.Ed.2d 817 (1996)). Nevertheless, Maryland law would yield the same outcome. While Maryland law applies the doctrine”
    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.