Bolden v. PRC Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
43 F.3d 545 · 1994
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 123 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 261 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Schwapp v. Town of Avon (1997), 194 W. Va. 52 - Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc. (1995)
60 federal appellate · 123 district · 11 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 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)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Love v. Pullman Co. · Oklahoma v. New Mexico
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 261 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a few isolated incidents of racial enmity”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress. [Citations omitted.] Proof of four elements is required to establish the cause of action: (1) The conduct of defendant must be intentional or in reckless disregard of plaintiff; (2) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) there must be a causal connection between defendant’s conduct and plaintiffs mental distress; and (4) plaintiffs mental distress must be extreme and severe. “Liability for extreme emotional distress has two threshold requirements which must be met and which the court must, in the first instance, determine: (1) Whether the defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery; and (2) whether the emotional distress suffered by plaintiff is in such extreme degree the law must intervene because the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the [plaintiff]'s employment and create an abusive working environment.”
3 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.