Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 522 F.2d 1091 - Slack v. Havens

Slack v. Havens’s Empirical Analysis

522 F.2d 1091 · 1975

Citation profile

154
cited by 154 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

75 federal appellate · 17 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 154 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. Knudson (2002), Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny (1979)

75 federal appellate · 17 district · 11 state decisions

53019751980199020002010decided

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. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood · Curtis v. Loether

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

  1. “(1) whether the successor company had notice of the charge; (2) the ability of the predecessor to provide relief; (3) whether there has been a substantial continuity of business operations; (4) whether the new employer uses the same plant; (5) whether he uses the same or substantially the same work force; (6) whether he uses the same or substantially the same supervisory personnel; (7) whether the same jobs exist under substantially the same working conditions; (8) whether he uses the same machinery, equipment and methods of production; and (9) whether he produces the same product.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[T]he [Supreme] Court left little doubt that not all awards of monetary relief should necessarily be characterized as legal relief for purposes of the jury trial requirement. Appellants’ claim that a jury trial must be afforded whenever any ‘legal’ characteristic is associated with a primarily ‘equitable’ action fails. Here, the award of back pay is an integral part of the equitable remedy of reinstatement. * * * [T]o consider it apart from that context would be to distort the traditional line dividing legal from equitable remedies.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “enjoin the respondent from engaging in . . . unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay . . . , or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. (emphasis added) 5”
    3 later decisions 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.