Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
522 F.2d 333 · 1975
Citation profile
147 federal appellate · 57 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 313 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1989), Bauman v. United States District Court (1977)
147 federal appellate · 57 district · 8 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Cruz v. Hauck · Parham v. Cortese
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 313 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]laintiffs . . . challenge the entire promotion system maintaining that it continually operated so as to hold them in lower echelons”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(e) A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred and notice of the charge (including the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice) shall be served upon the person against whom such charge is made within ten days thereafter, except that in a case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, such charge shall be filed by or on behalf of the person aggrieved within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or within thirty days after receiving notice that the State or local agency has terminated the proceedings under the State or local law, whichever is earlier, and a copy of such charge shall be filed by the Commission with the State or local agency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. (b) Class actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: * * * * * * (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final in- junctive relief, or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole * * * .”
2 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.