Coleman v. Darden’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.2d 533 · 1979
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 41 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Prewitt v. United States Postal Service (1981), Pushkin v. Regents of the University of Colorado (1981)
35 federal appellate · 41 district · 6 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 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Stanley v. Illinois
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“once a properly supported summary judgment motion is made, the opposing party may not rest on the allegations contained in his complaint, but must respond with specific facts showing the existence of a genuine factual issue to be tried.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Undoubtedly, the defendants would also have required an applicant to possess the ability to understand the English language, although that ability was not listed as a specific job requirement. However, that does not mean, and certainly Coleman would not seriously argue, that a person alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin could demand that the agency permit him to prove that he could perform the job with the aid of an interpreter provided by the agency. [ 595 F.2d at 540 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Zorick v. Tynes“Statutes creating permanent irrebuttable presumptions, which are neither necessarily nor universally true, are disfavored under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, because they preclude individualized determination of the facts upon which substantial rights or obligations may depend. Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 , 93 S.Ct. 2230 , 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973).”
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.