Bing v. Roadway Express, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
485 F.2d 441 · 1973
Citation profile
118 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 199 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (1977), Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. (1974)
118 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 (§ 703 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 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Magna Oil Corp. v. Bateson · Roaden v. Kentucky · Local 189 v. United States · 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
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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a supplemental or moonlight job is one that the discriminatee cannot perform when he wins his new position, the supplemental job is necessarily temporary, provisional or ‘interim.’ By contrast, if one can hold his supplemental job and his desired full time job simultaneously and there is reason to believe he mil do so, the supplemental job assumes a permanent rather than interim nature. Those earnings would be independent of the position sought and should not be taken into account in back pay calculations, (emphasis added).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i)f an employee realizes full well that blacks simply are not hired (for certain positions), why should he bother to apply?”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]nterim earnings ... [of] the person ... discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable,”
5 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.