Decker v. Anheuser-Busch’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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 Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. · Harold FRANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Johnny Lee, Intervenor-Appellant, v. BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees · Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express · Lewis v. Conners Steel Co. · Texports Stevedore Co. v. Winchester
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“based upon a consideration of all the unique facts of this case, it does not find that Decker constructively received the notice via Peterson [his attorney]. There is [sic] simply too many oddities in the Decker-Peterson relationship and deviations from what is [sic] presumably standard EEOC procedures to hold Decker to the severe result of constructive receipt. As only the date of Decker’s actual receipt of the EEOC’s notice of right to sue will count for purposes of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff’s suit was timely filed.”
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.