No 29225’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
9 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. · Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. · John Martin Oatis, David Johnson, Sr., and R. T. Young v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation · Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works of International Harvester Co. · Samuel Culpepper, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Reynolds Metals Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Because appellees in the District Court argued that any § 1981 claim would be barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to tort claims . we herein state our view for the guidance of the court on remand that the applicable statute of limitations is rather the ten-year provision governing contract claims. ... It is, after all, the right to ‘make and enforce contracts’ which is protected by § 1981””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the defendant employers had posted a sign reading 'No Negroes will be hired for light work,’ it is inconceivable that [the complainant] would be held to have been obliged to go through the futile gesture of attending the shape-up in order to establish his status as a person aggrieved. [The result should not] be different merely because the employers’ practice, although equally notorious, was less openly publicized.””
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.