Bush v. State Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.2d 780 · 1979
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Cromwell v. Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp. (1991), Reeves v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. (1980)
21 federal appellate ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 255
Relies on Bell v. Hood · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) After the expiration of one hundred and twenty days from June 25, 1938, it shall be unlawful for any person— (3) to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Fjailure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not a dismissal for want of [subject matter] jurisdiction. Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law, and just as issues of fact, it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. If the court does later exercise its jurisdiction to determine that the allegations in the complaint do not state a ground for relief, then dismissal of the case would be on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction.”
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.