Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 583 P.2d 867 - McLean v. State

McLean v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2018

10 state decisions

3019781980199020002010decided

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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Loomis Electronics Protection, Inc. v. Schaefer · Brown v. Wood · Wondzell v. Alaska Wood Products, Inc.

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The only exception to the statutory requirement prohibiting discrimination is that discrimination ... is permitted only “when the reasonable demands of the position” require distinctions [be made]. But this is not an easy escape valve from the anti-discrimination policy of the statute- The connotation we place on “demands” is that of requirements or necessities that are of an urgent nature.... Without such a connotation, all but the most blatant discriminatory plans would be excused even if they perpetuated the effects of past discrimination.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “we believe that the legislature intended to put as many 'teeth' into this law as possible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.