Macklin v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis
553 F.2d 525 · 1977
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Posey v. Skyline Corp. (1983), Ayres v. Indian Heights Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. (1986)
36 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · 8 Fair empl.prac.cas. 577, 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9658 William A. Waters and Donald Samuels v. Wisconsin Steel Works of International William A. Waters and Donald a Corporation, and United Order of American Bricklayers and Stone Masons, Local 21, an Unincorporated Association, United Order of American Bricklayers and Stone Masons, Local 21 v. William A. Waters and Donald Samuels, International Harvester Company v. William A. Waters and Donald Samuels · Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works of International Harvester Co.
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all parties ... reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“I Once again we are confronted with “one of those troublesome cases in which an appeal follows a disposition occurring by way of procedures amounting to something less than a full trial and which, upon consideration of the briefs, oral argument, and record, presents serious procedural questions in a record situation wherein further attention at the trial court level with rectification of any procedural errors conceivably could be followed by the same result as before in the litigation. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter that fairness of procedure is due process in the primary sense, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 , 161, 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (concurring opinion), we address ourselves to the issues raised upon this appea' to determine whether a reversal is required.” Macklin v. Butler, 553 F.2d 525 , 527-528 (7th Cir. 1977).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Choudhry v. Jenkins“It seems fair to include within the term “reasonable opportunity” some indication by the court to “all parties” that it is treating the 12(b)(6) motion as a motion for summary judgment. Costen v. Pauline’s Sportswear, Inc., 391 F.2d 81 , 85 n.5 (9th Cir. 1968);”
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.