Smith v. Universal Services., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
454 F.2d 154 · 1972
Citation profile
96 federal appellate · 11 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 167 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co. (2008), Goldberg v. B. Green & Co. (1988)
96 federal appellate · 11 district · 7 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 28 U.S.C. § 1732 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Palmer v. Hoffman · Elkanich v. United States · Songy v. Godchaux Sugars, Inc. · 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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he district court is obligated to hear evidence of whatever nature which tends to throw factual light on the controversy and ease its fact-finding burden. ... [T]o ignore the manpower and resources expended on the EEOC investigation and the expertise acquired by its field investigators in the area of discriminatory employment practices would be wasteful and unnecessary. The fact that an investigator, trained and experienced in the area of discriminatory practices and the various methods by which they can be secreted, has found that it is likely that such an unlawful practice has occurred, is highly probative of the ultimate issue involved in such cases. Its probative value, we believe, at least outweighs any possible prejudice to defendant.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he report is in no sense binding on the district court and is to be given no more weight than any other testimony given at trial.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The report involved in the instant case was prepared by an investigator for the [Department of Labor], pursuant to its statutory mandate, and was not prepared in anticipation of litigation. The [Department] is not a party to the litigation and can have no interest therein. The inves tigator had no personal involvement in the situation. There is no reason to suspect any lack of trustworthiness.””
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.