Love v. Pullman Co.’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 49 · 1969
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001 · most notably Love v. Pullman Co. (1972), Terrell v. Household Goods Carriers' Bureau (1974)
11 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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
Relationships
Relies on Dobbins v. Local 212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 5 v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · United States v. HK Porter Company · Antonopulos v. Aerojet-General Corporation · Erlene Crosslin and Robert Crosslin, Her Husband v. The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(Where a state procedure exists), no charge may be filed under subsection (a) of this section [i. e., with the EEOC] by the person aggrieved before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated, ...” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(b). “A charge under subsection (a) of this section [i. e., before the EEOC] shall be filed within ninety days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, except that in the case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has followed the procedure set out in subsection (b) of this section;_ such charge shall be filed by the person aggrieved within two hundred and ten days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or within thirty days after receiving notice that the State or local agency has terminated the proceedings under the State or local law, which ever is earlier . . .”42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5 (d)..”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is precise in its requirements that the States with adequate statutes and machinery have the first opportunity to consider complaints. This first opportunity is a clear requirement in the sequences set out in the Act.” 430 F.2d at 53.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““This [“Thus” is evidently meant] without further word or act by the complainant to permit the EEOC to then ‘automatically’ assert jurisdiction after sixty days does not comply with the Act as described in the prior opinion.””
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.