Prate v. Freedman’s Empirical Analysis
583 F.2d 42 · 1978
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Eastway Construction Corp. v. City of New York (1985), Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes (1989)
37 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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. § 1988 · 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 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Link v. Wabash Railroad · Washington v. Davis
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“considered to have 'notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the[ir] attorney.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether or not [plaintiffs’] reliance on their attorneys’ judgment was misplaced, they are legally responsible for the filing of these actions. The consequences of their attorneys’ mistakes should not be visited on the appellants, whose participation in these suits helped to further the salutary purposes of Title VII.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our decision in United States v. Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers Union [ 471 F.2d 408 , 413 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 939 , 93 S.Ct. 2773 , 37 L.Ed.2d 398 (1973)] foreclosed the argument that preferential hiring relief may only be based on a formal finding of past discrimination made after an evidentiary hearing.”
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.