Hadfield v. Mitre Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.2d 84 · 1977
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 1998 · most notably Kale v. Combined Insurance Co. of America (1988), Tinsley v. First Union National Bank (1998)
18 federal appellate · 12 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 Love v. Pullman Co. · Halliday v. United States · Reeb v. Economic Opportunity Atlanta, Inc. · Rogers v. Exxon Research & Engineering Co. · Crosslin v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No civil action may be commenced by any individual under this section until the individual has given the Secretary not less than sixty days’ notice of an intent to file such action. Such notice shall be filed- (1) within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred, or (2) in a case to which section 633(b) of this title applies, within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred or within thirty days after receipt by the individual of notice of termination of proceedings under State law, whichever is earlier.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“By its literal terms, therefore, section 633(b) admits of no exception where a state has authorized a private cause of action not requiring deferral to a state agency. Nor do we find the need for deferral implicitly waived where a state has established an independent cause of action ... [T]he relevant consideration in determining whether a State has “establish[ed] or authorized] a State authority to grant or seek relief” within the meaning of section 633(b) is whether the agency is statutorily authorized to seek voluntary compliance. (Footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“state within the meaning of the A.D.E.A. The Court noted that the Puerto Rico Discrimination Act (also known as Law 100, 29 L.P.R.A. § 146) prohibited age discrimination, thus fulfilling the first requirement of § 633(b). But it never held, as defendant alleges, that the Commonwealth's Law 100 did not contemplate a state authority equipped to investigate age discrimination claims and to attempt to resolve disputes through voluntary compliance, the second requirement for the existence of a”
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.