William F. ZINGER, Appellant, v. Robert W. BLANCHETTE Et Al., Appellees’s Empirical Analysis
549 F.2d 901 · 1977
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1998 · most notably United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMann (1977), Ackerman v. Diamond Shamrock Corp. (1982)
35 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia · General Electric Co. v. Gilbert · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers · County of San Diego v. Rincon Band of Mission Indians
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The primary purpose of the Act is to prevent age discrimination in hiring and discharging workers. There is, however, a clear, measurable difference between outright discharge and retirement, a distinction that cannot be overlooked in analyzing the Act. While discharge without compensation is obviously undesirable, retirement on an adequate pension is generally regarded with favor. A careful examination of the legislative history demonstrates that, while cognizant of the disruptive effect retirement may have on individuals, Congress continued to regard retirement plans favorably and chose therefore to legislate only with respect to discharge.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that an employer may decide to permit certain employees to continue working beyond the age stipulated in the formal retirement program does not, in and of itself, render an otherwise bona fide plan invalid, insofar as the exception provided in Section 4(f)(2) is concerned.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“adversely affect his status as an employee,”
3 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.