King v. First’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
11 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2013
11 district · 12 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 (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp. · Dwyer v. Globe Newspaper Co. · College-Town, Division of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · Glus v. G. C. Murphy Co. · Charland v. Muzi Motors, 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Federal courts have consistently held that there are exceptions to the general rule that a party who is not named as a respondent in an administrative charge before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... is not subject to a subsequent civil action.... One of those exceptions is where the named party acted as an agent of the unnamed party and the unnamed party had notice of, and participated in, the conciliation proceedings .... Other considerations include whether the complaining party could ascertain through reasonable efforts the role of the unnamed party in the alleged discriminatory incident; whether the interests of the named party are similar to those of the unnamed party; whether the absence of the unnamed party from the administrative proceedings would result in actual prejudice to the unnamed party; and whether the unnamed party has in some way represented to the complainant that its relationship with the complainant is to be through the named party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.