Angeline OSTAPOWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHNSON BRONZE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis
541 F.2d 394 · 1976
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 46 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 260 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co. (1981), Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co. (1985)
76 federal appellate · 46 district · 7 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 · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. · Marco Defunis et al. v. Charles Odegaard, President of the University of Washington. · Bullock v. United States
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 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the parameters of the civil action in the district court are defined by the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination, including new acts which occurred during the pendency of proceedings before the Commission.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may fairly be considered explanations of the original charge and growing out of it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The court cited McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra and carefully followed its guidelines in ruling on burden of proof at various stages of the case. The McDonnell case holds that once a prima facie case of a Title VII violation has been established, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the unequal treatment shown in the prima facie case. The defendant must prove its justification by a preponderance of the evidence.””
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.