Harris v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.3d 442 · 2007
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 40 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Greer v. Paulson (2007), Ramirez v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (2012)
5 federal appellate · 40 district ·
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 (§ 717 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 Czekalski v. Peters · Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia · Mondy v. Secretary of the Army · Sizova v. National Institute of Standards & Technology · Londrigan v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
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.
“no reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff] and drawing all inferences in her favor, could conclude that she lacked constructive notice of the 45-day requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether notification of the time requirements was provided, and (2) whether the notification was reasonably geared to inform the complainant of the time limits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“ha[d] no way of determining whether the posters were 'reasonably geared' to notify [the plaintiff] of the time limit because”
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.