Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 F.3d 407 - Woolf v. Bowles

Woolf v. Bowles’s Empirical Analysis

57 F.3d 407 · 1995

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2022

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

901995200020102020decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 634 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 5596

Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Library of Congress v. Shaw · Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Shugrue · Loeffler v. Frank · Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'resulted in the withdrawal or reduction ... of the pay, allowances, or differentials of the employee[.]'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Shaw 's reminder that waivers of interest immunity are to be strictly construed ... provides further support for our conclusion [that under Landgraf § 114(2) of the 1991 Act cannot apply retroactively to authorize interest on back pay against the Government]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Title VII now contains the express waiver of interest immunity lacking at the time Shaw was decided.”) In any event, the Supreme Court appeared to limit the holding in Shaw to the”
    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.