Krzyzewski v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County’s Empirical Analysis
584 F.2d 802 · 1978
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably Delaware State College v. Ricks (1980), Naton v. Bank of California (1981)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. · Bonham v. Dresser Industries, Inc. · Olson v. Rembrandt Printing Co. · Judy C. EGELSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AT GENESEO Et Al., Defendants-Appellees · Marlowe v. Fisher Body
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although no simple rule can be formulated which will deal adequately with all factual situations, where unequivocal notice of termination and the employee’s last day of work coincide, then the alleged unlawful act will be deemed to have occurred on that date, notwithstanding the employee’s continued receipt of certain employee benefits such as periodic severance payments or extended insurance coverage. See Davis v. R.J.R. Foods, Inc., 420 F.Supp. 930 , 931 n.1 (SDNY 1976), aff’d without opinion, 556 F.2d 555 (2nd Cir. 1977); Doski v. M. Goldseker Co., 539 F.2d 1326 , 1328 n.3 (4th Cir. 1976); Payne v. Crane Co., 560 F.2d 198,199 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam). We reject the rule propounded in Moses v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 525 F.2d 92 (8th Cir. 1975), which looks exclusively to the company’s official termination date as reflected in company records. Because, as in the case sub judice, a company may use different termination dates for different purposes, the Moses rule does not adequately resolve the issue. Moreover, we would be wary of any approach which determines the timeliness of an employee’s suit against his employer solely on the basis of the records which are within the exclusive control of the employer. On the other hand, we also view with disfavor a rule that penalizes a company for giving an employee periodic severance pay or other extended benefits after the relationship has terminated rather than severing all ties when the employee is let go. 569 F.2d at 191, 192 ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although no simple rule can be formulated which will deal adequately with all factual situations, where unequivocal notice of termination and the employee's last day of work coincide, then the alleged unlawful act will be deemed to have occurred on that date, notwithstanding the employee's continued receipt of certain employee benefits such as periodic severance payments or extended insurance coverage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think the better rule is one which seeks to determine when the alleged unlawful employment practice actually occurred rather than accepting the administrative data shown on an employee’s personal or payroll records.” 584 F.2d at 805.”
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.