Danner v. Phillips Petroleum Co.’s Empirical Analysis
447 F.2d 159 · 1971
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 174 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014 · most notably East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez (1977), United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, Inc. (1975)
76 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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 (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on John Martin Oatis, David Johnson, Sr., and R. T. Young v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation · Jenkins v. United Gas Corp. · Miller v. International Paper Co. · 295 F. Supp. 943 - King v. Georgia Power 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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'like or reasonably related to the allegations of the charge and growing out of such allegations.'”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Civil Rights Act is designed to protect those who are least able to protect themselves. ... To compel the charging party to specifically articulate in a charge filed with the Commission the full panoply of discrimination which he may have suffered may cause the very persons Title VII was designed to protect to lose that protection because they are ignorant of or unable to thoroughly describe the discriminatory practices to which they are subjected. 538 F.2d at 168 . (Citation omitted.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Class actions are very specialized types of suits, and an ‘allegation of class representation is attended by serious consequences’. Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Anaconda American Brass Co., E.D.Pa.1967, 42 F.R.D. 324, 328 . Class actions are governed by the quite specific requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a general rule, an action on behalf of unnamed persons must be brought in conformity with Rule 23. See 3B Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 23.02-2. * * * But if they (the other members of the purported class) decide to bring a class action, it must be brought and identified as such, and the predicate for class action relief must be carefully laid.” 10 “io. Our denial of class action relief in the instant case by no means affects the previous rulings of this Court holding (1) that class actions are permissible under Title VII and (2) that it is not necessary that every member of the class bringing a Title VII suit first file a charge with the EEOC. See Miller v. International Paper Co., 5th Cir. 1968, 408 F.2d 283 ; Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 5th Cir. 1968, 398 F.2d 496 . All we hold is that class action relief must be predicated upon a proper class action complaint satisfying all the requirements of Rule 23.”
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.