William B. Richardson v. Dee E. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
446 F.2d 1247 · 1971
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012 · most notably Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans (1979), Robert C. Hahn v. Francis W. Sargent (1975)
45 federal appellate · 11 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.
Relationships
Relies on Griffin v. Breckenridge · Collins v. Hardyman · Dent v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. · Coleman v. New York
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is immediately apparent that under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Pa.Stat.Ann. Tit. 43, § 955 (Supp.1970), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-S, plaintiff had an available forum in which to present the charges contained in his complaint. Unfortunately, plaintiff failed to . avail himself of the procedures provided by the Acts to afford redress for violations of the type alleged here. Since plaintiff failed to file a charge with the respective Commissions within the appropriate time periods, he is now foreclosed from pursuing the remedies provided by the Acts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hile the question is very close, particularly because unlike Griffin the plaintiff is not a member of the class allegedly discriminated against, we have concluded that, in light of the trend in recent decisions to ‘accord (to the civil rights statutes) a sweep as broad as (their) language,’ and in light of the standard by which these allegations must be viewed when faced with a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the question must here be answered in the affirmative.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“racial, or perhaps otherwise, class-based invidiously discriminatory animus.” Kimble, 648 F.2d at 345 (quoting Griffin, 403 U.S. at 101-02 , 91 S.Ct. at 1797-98 ). The Fifth Circuit noted that”
2 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.