← 514 F.2d 767 - Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity’s Empirical Analysis

514 F.2d 767 · 1975

Citation profile

131

cited by 131 later decisions

states following

February 2020

most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Weinberger v. Kendrick (1982), United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, Inc. (1975)

69 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 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

Relies on Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Yi Au Lau v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · Rogers v. Loether · West Virginia v. Chas. Pfizer & Co. · UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“"the clear policy in favor of encouraging settlements must also be taken into account, see Florida Trailer & Equipment Co. v. Deal, 284 F.2d 567, 571 (5th Cir. 1960), particularly in an area where voluntary compliance by the parties over an extended period will contribute significantly toward ultimate achievement of statutory goals."”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Howard v. McLucas · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
““This case arises under a statute which by its terms is limited to protection against employment discrimination based on an individual’s ‘race, color, religion, sex or national origin.’ [The non-minority intervenor] does not allege discrimination against him based on any of these factors. Any past denial of promotion rights to [the non-minority intervenor] is clearly not remediable under Title VII.” (Citations omitted). Patterson, supra, at 772 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 401 F. Supp. 1363 - Whitney v. Greater New York Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists
“contradicts our basic assumption that individuals are to be judged as individuals, not as members of particular racial groups. 31 The tension between these two policy considerations is demonstrated by certain facially-contradictory provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(j) specifically prohibits”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 12 Fair empl.prac.cas. 755, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,757 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the City of New York v. Local 638 . . . Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and Local 28 Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Sheet Metal and Air-Conditioning Contractors' Association of New York City, Inc., Etc., Local 28, Third-Party v. New York State Division of Human Rights, Third-Party Local 28 Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Fourth-Party v. New York State Division of Human Rights, Fourth-Party

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.