Sagers v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
529 F.2d 721 · 1976
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (1977), Rush PETTWAY Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee (1978)
45 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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
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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. · Magna Oil Corp. v. Bateson · Reamer v. Beall
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Litigants have no difficulty finding expressions urging courts to have a due regard for a cautious observance of the requirements of a summary judgment or, if they are appellees, they may find expressions that summary judgments are looked upon with favor. Barron & Holtzoff, however, make the pertinent observation: “Cases voicing such sentiments as that courts should be slow to grant summary judgment and that any error should be on the side of caution should be limited to their facts. [Rule 56] itself provides that ‘the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if * * * there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and * * the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1231.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the first opportunity to move into the next vacancies and positions which they would have occupied but for wrongful discrimination and which they are qualified to fill.”
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.