Williams v. Boorstin’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez · Cities Service Co. v. United States · Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“one witness ... that part of the problem in resolving discrimination complaints relates to the absence of people who are willing and, more importantly, able to stand up for employees who have grievances; Williams was the only really efficient, effective person available.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Boorstin“to establish and contribute financially to the maintenance of a (legal fund) service for the benefit of Library employees with bona fide discrimination grievances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Boorstin“But Williams also falsely represented himself to be first a law student and then a law graduate. No court should take such calculated falsehoods lightly.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Boorstin
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.