Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 522 F.2d 1128 - Jordan v. United States

Jordan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

522 F.2d 1128 · 1975

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
March 2011
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Vinieratos v. United States, Department of the Air Force ex rel. Aldridge (1991), Wilson v. Peña (1996)

34 federal appellate · 8 district ·

31019751980199020002010decided

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)

Relies on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · United States v. Sherwood · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · McKart v. United States · Land US v. Dollar

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

  1. “[s]imple fairness to those who are engaged in the tasks of administration, and to litigants, requires as a general rule that courts should not topple over administrative decisions unless the administrative body not only erred but has erred against objection made at the time appropriate under its practice.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Implicit in the . . . attempted control of . . . discrimination by administrative and judicial machinery is a degree of cooperation from the complaining party. A full development of the pertinent facts cannot be had without the disclosure by the aggrieved employee of the facts serving as a basis for his complaint.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.