Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 464 F.2d 1223 - Jinks v. Mays

Jinks v. Mays’s Empirical Analysis

464 F.2d 1223 · 1972

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
states following
May 2006
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently May 2006 · most notably 5 Fair empl.prac.cas. 587, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8460 United States of America v. Georgia Power Company, Charles King v. Georgia Power Company (1973), Myers v. Gilman Paper Corp. (1977)

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

3701972198019902000decided

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

Relies on Harkless v. Sweeny Independent School District · Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp. · Williams v. Kimbrough · Horton v. Lawrence County Board of Education

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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(f)ederal district courts may, in their discretion, award attorneys' fees in civil rights litigation where the actions of the defendants were 'unreasonable and obdurately obstinate'. Horton v. Lawrence County Board of Education, 449 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1971); Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 429 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1970) and Williams v. Kimbrough, 415 F.2d 874 (5th Cir. 1969).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Section 1983 was designed to provide a comprehensive remedy for the deprivation of federal constitutional and statutory rights. The prayer for back pay is not a claim for damages, but is an integral part of the equitable remedy of injunctive reinstatement. Reinstatement involves a return of the plaintiffs to the positions they held before the alleged unconstitutional failure to renew their contracts. An inextricable part of the restoration to prior status is the payment of back wages properly owing to the plaintiffs, diminished by their earnings, if any, in the interim. Back pay is merely an element of the equitable remedy of reinstatement.” (Citations omitted.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “But, back wages are not to be automatically granted whenever a person is ordered reinstated. The wages sought must be “properly owing to the plaintiffs.” This requires positive proof that plaintiff was ordinarily entitled to the wages in question and, being without fault, would have received them in the ordinary course of things but for the inequitable conduct of the party from whom the wages are claimed. Jinks v. Mays, 464 F.2d 1223, 1226 (CA5 1972).”
    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.