Enos v. Kaiser Industries Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anne M. DARTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee · James F. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL SALES, INC., Defendant-Appellee · Bomer v. Ribicoff · Virginia L. GOGER, Appellant, v. H. K. PORTER COMPANY, INC., Appellee · Verbale HISCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a dismissal without prejudice does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits, and thus leaves the situation the same as if suit had never been brought. In effect, therefore, there was nothing to suspend the operation of the limitation period. Thus ... ‘a party cannot deduct from the period of limitations the time during which the action ... dismissed [without prejudice] was pending.’”
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.