Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 628 F.2d 419 - Johnson v. Uncle Ben's, Inc.

Johnson v. Uncle Ben's, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

628 F.2d 419 · 1980

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
1
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

61 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Henson v. City of Dundee (1982), Lincoln v. Board of Regents of the University System (1983)

61 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

7501980199020002010decided

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 Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Hazelwood School District v. United States

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

  1. “If [UBI] hires laterally, the relevant comparison is to the general or qualified outside labor force. If Uncle Ben's fills jobs by promotion, the relevant comparison, as we recognized in James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co., 559 F.2d at 331, 341 [ (5th Cir.1977) ], is the company's internal work force. The applicability of James in any given case turns on whether vacancies in non-entry level positions are or could be filled by promotion. If the vacant positions ordinarily are filled by lateral hires or hiring from among graduates of relevant educational programs, then the rigid James rule is inapplicable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he district court must decide whether Uncle Ben’s has rebutted or discredited plaintiff’s prima facie showing that in promotions blacks are relegated to lower level jobs and are- promoted at a significantly slower rate than whites. On this question, statistics comparing Uncle Ben’s work force to the external labor market are irrelevant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “determine the number of Uncle Ben's jobs that were filled by promotion and the number that were filled by hiring from outside of the Uncle Ben's work force.”
    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.