Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 610 F.2d 20 - Omawale v. WBZ

Omawale v. WBZ’s Empirical Analysis

610 F.2d 20 · 1979

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2004

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

2001979198019902000decided

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. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Loeb v. Textron, Inc. · Grayson v. Wickes Corp.

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

  1. “Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue. Such demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Mr. Omawale contends that by checking a box on the Civil Cover Sheet indicating that a jury demand had been made he satisfied the requirements of Rule 38. However, the notation on the Cover Sheet is not a substitute for the service of written notice on the defendants required by the Federal Rules. See also Biesenkamp v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 70 F.R.D. 365 (E.D.Pa.1976).”
    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.