Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.2d 222 · 1976
Citation profile
151 federal appellate · 46 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 296 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheney (1980), Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. (1989)
151 federal appellate · 46 district · 20 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 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Gardner v. California
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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'balance the purpose of [Title VII] to protect persons engaging reasonably in activities - opposing discrimination, against Congress' equally manifest desire not to tie the hands of employers in the objective selection and control of personnel.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[T]he employer's right to run his business must be balanced against the rights of the employee to express his grievances and promote his own welfare.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Discrimination for making charges, testifying, assisting, or participating in enforcement proceedings It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful 'employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.”
4 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.