Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 529 F.2d 1062 - Washington v. Walker

Washington v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

529 F.2d 1062 · 1976

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
December 2001
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 2001 · most notably 108 Ill. 2d 373 - Buzz Barton & Associates, Inc. v. Giannone (1985), Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., and Allied Chemical Corporation, Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., and N.W. Ayer & Son, Incorporated D/B/A N.W. Ayer Abh International (1977)

13 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

1401976198019902000decided

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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · Oburn v. Shapp · Gloria Banks v. James L. Trainor, Etc.

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

  1. “The appropriateness of granting or denying a preliminary injunction “depends upon a balancing of several factors, including the likelihood of success on the merits, the lack of adequate remedy at law, the prospect of irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued and a comparison of the relative hardships imposed on the parties.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In reviewing the district court's assessment of these factors, the Court of Appeals should not substitute its judgment for that of the lower court unless it is convinced that the district court abused its discretion.”
    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.