Moore v. Sunbeam Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
459 F.2d 811 · 1972
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably Mohasco Corp. v. Silver (1980), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Commercial Office Products Co. (1988)
71 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 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 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Vaca v. Sipes · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co. · Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox
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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“suggestion that complainants in some states were to be allowed to proceed with less diligence than those in other states.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law . . . ” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c). 4”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) In the case of an alleged unlawful employment practice occurring in a State, . . . which has a State or local law prohibiting the unlawful employment practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no charge may be filed under subsection (b) of this section by the person aggrieved before the expiration of sixty days after the proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated, provided that such sixty-day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of such State or local law. If any requirement for the commencement of such proceedings is imposed by a State or local authority other than a requirement of the filing of a written and signed statement of the facts upon which the proceeding is based, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been commenced for the purposes of this subsection- at the time such statement is sent by registered mail to the appropriate State or local authority. (d) .. . (e) A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred and notice of the charge .. . shall be served upon the person against whom such charge is made within ten days thereafter, except that in a case of an unlawful employment p”
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.