Bowers v. Kraft Foods Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
606 F.2d 816 · 1979
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2003 · most notably Johnson v. Bunny Bread Co. (1981), Jones v. Continental Corp. (1986)
31 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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Marshall v. Kirkland · Southern Illinois Stone Company v. Universal Engineering Corporation
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we have upheld the judgment of the district court denying Bowers relief, we do not believe that Bowers’ contentions were so frivolous or malicious as to justify an award of attorney’s fees to Kraft. Bowers’ receipt of a right to sue letter, even though insufficient in itself to overcome the district court’s finding of frivolity, could have lead [sic] Bowers to reasonably believe that her claim was meritorious. Moreover, the evidence, while weak, was sufficient to conceivably have influenced Bowers to believe that she had a stronger case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“but should not do so unless it finds that the plaintiff's claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a finding of fact is only deemed clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if it proceeds from an erroneous conception of the applicable law, or if on a consideration of the entire record the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
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.