Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Central School District’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.3d 886 · 1995
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably United States v. Simmonds (1997), Boykin v. KeyCorp (2008)
30 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Nebraska v. Wyoming
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e do not address the situation where Congress replaces a statute of limitations with a shorter one that, if applied to a claim filed after the statute becomes effective, cuts off a plaintiff's right to sue without providing him with an opportunity to comply with the new period”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“As courts presented with this issue have recognized, applying a new or amended statute of limitations to bar a cause of action filed after its enactment, but arising out of events that predate its enactment, generally is not a retroactive application of the statute. In such a case, the statute is applied to conduct that occurs after the statute’s enactment— plaintiffs filing of the complaint — not the defendant’s allegedly unlawful acts.... Where a new rule alters substantive rights, to apply the new rule prospectively means to apply it to claims based on conduct occurring from that time forward. However, where as here, the new rule announces a period of limitations, the conduct to which it refers is the plaintiffs conduct relating to the filing of the claim and not the defendant’s conduct giving rise to the claim. Retroactivity concerns, therefore, generally do not bar application of a changed statute of limitations to a complaint filed after the amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We agree with those cases that hold that the limitations period enacted in the 1991 Act should apply to claims filed after its enactment, including those in which the cause of action accrued beforehand. The reasoning in those cases is more persuasive, and their conclusions are bolstered by previous decisions of this court as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 1483 , 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994).”
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.