46 F. Supp. 2d 206 - Curtis v. DiMaio’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2014
2 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1927 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1986
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Harris v. Forklift Systems, 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e have seen no indication that, when drafting the original § 1981 or the amending 1991 Act, Congress intended the term “contract” to have any meaning other than its ordinary one. See Lane v. Ogden Entertainment, Inc., 13 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1272 (M.D.Ala.1998) (“ ‘Contract’ is used in § 1981 in its basic legal meaning....”). Having concluded that an at-will employment relationship is contractual, we hold that such relationships may therefore serve as predicate contracts for § 1981 claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is well established that federal district courts possess the power to administer their dockets in a manner that conserves scarce judicial resources and promotes the efficient and comprehensive disposition of cases”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“for reasons of wise judicial administration... whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court”
1 later decision 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.