Hameed’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 2006 · most notably 191 Cal. App. 3d 976 - City & County of San Francisco v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission (1987), Airport Inn, Inc. v. Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (1984)
3 district · 2 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
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The method of distributing the back pay due the 45 “actual” discriminatees [the number of persons determined in Ha-meed as the result of the “shortfall” calculation] among the more than 45 claimants should not result in some persons obtaining a back pay award greater than their actual damages. Back pay is intended to compensate for injury, not to reward plaintiffs or penalize defendants. If there are more than 45 claimants, not all claimants will receive back pay equal to the amount they would receive if they were actual discriminatees. The district court’s task on remand is to devise an equitable distribution of the amounts due. The maximum any one claimant may recover is the amount due if he were an actual discriminatee. The maximum liability of the Union [the party corresponding to Chicago Miniature here] is the aggregate amount of back pay that would be due 45 actual discriminatees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.