Susan Rae BAKER, Appellant, v. STUART BROADCASTING COMPANY, a Corporation, Et Al., Appellees’s Empirical Analysis
505 F.2d 181 · 1974
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (1978), Girard v. 94th Street & Fifth Avenue Corp. (1976)
21 federal appellate · 12 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
Relies on Griffin v. Breckenridge · Keeble v. United States · Dombrowski v. Dowling · Blackburn v. Fisk University · Robinson v. McCorkle
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a single act of discrimination by a single business entity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 396 F. Supp. 450 - Girard v. 94th Street and Fifth Avenue Corp. · 17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1252, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8576 John R. Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association, John A. Virostek, Joseph E. Bugel, John J. Dravecky, Daniel T. Kubasak, Edward J. Lesko, James E. Orris, Joseph A. Prokopovitsh, John G. Micenko and Frank J. Vanek“(3) If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”
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.