McLaughin v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
547 F.2d 918 · 1977
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Griffin v. Carlin (1985), Chisholm v. United States Postal Service (1981)
16 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Benton v. Maryland · Sosna v. Iowa · Brown v. General Services Administration · American Party of Texas v. White · Board of School Commissioners of City of Indianapolis v. Jacobs
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here a live controversy still exists between appellant McLaughlin and appel- lees. In addition to the relief awarded to appellant on an individual basis, the complaint requested class-wide injunctive relief directing appellees to dismantle their allegedly discriminatory hiring and promotion system. As a member of the class alleged in the complaint, appellant stands to benefit in the future from any class-wide relief that may be granted by the district court, notwithstanding the fact that he was granted back pay, expenses, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief relative to his sought-after promotion . . . That is, appellant stands to benefit directly from the injunctive relief he requested on behalf of his class, and the controversy between appellant and appel-lees is therefore sufficiently concrete to support Article III jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“While neither party raises this issue, mootness is a jurisdictional question under Article III, which may be raised by the court.”
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.