Florida v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly (1990), American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith (1990)
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 13 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedRamp Operations, Inc. v. Reliance Insurance (from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Carnegie v. United States · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. · City of Los Angeles Department of Water v. Manhart
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clearly defined the employer's obligations under Title VII”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is not correct to consider payment of benefits based on a retirement that has already occurred as a sort of continuing violation. Our decision in Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 [ 106 S.Ct. 3000 , 92 L.Ed.2d 315 ] (1986), is not to the contrary. Bazemore concerned the continuing payment of discriminatory wages____ In a salary case, however, each week’s paycheck is compensation for work presently performed and completed by an employee. Further, the employer does not fund its payroll on an actuarial basis. By contrast, a pension plan, funded on an actuarial basis, provides benefits fixed under a contract between the employer and retiree based on a past assessment of an employee’s expected years of service, date of retirement, average final salary, and years of projected benefits. In the pension fund context, a continuing violation principle in every case would render employers liable for all past conduct, regardless of whether the liability principle was first announced by [Los Angeles, Dept. of Water and Power v.] Manhart [ 435 U.S. 702 , 98 S.Ct. 1370 , 55 L.Ed.2d 657 ], (1978), [Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v.] Norris [ 463 U.S. 1073 , 103 S.Ct. 3492 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1236 ] (1983) or our decision here. We cannot recognize a principle of equitable relief that ignores the essential assumptions of an actuarially funded pension plan---- It is essentially retroactive to disrupt past pension funding assumptions by requiring fur”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A different case, and a different assessment of retroactivity, might result under pension plan structures which do not provide retirees with a contractual right to a fixed level of benefits or rate of return on contributions. See Spirt v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Assoc., 735 F.2d 23, 28 (2d Cir.1984). There, an award for future increase may require neither additional funding by the State or employer nor violation of contractual rights of other retirees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.