Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 644 F.2d 1251 - Saulsbury v. Wismer & Becker, Inc.

Saulsbury v. Wismer & Becker, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

644 F.2d 1251 · 1980

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Bouman v. Block (1991), Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc. (1997)

18 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

1801980199020002010decided

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 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Mohasco Corp. v. Silver · Love v. Pullman Co. · Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans · California Brewers Assn. v. Bryant

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

  1. ““A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred ... except that in a case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency . . . such charge shall be filed . .. within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or within thirty days after receiving notice that the State or local agency has terminated the proceedings under State or local law, whichever is earlier. ...” (emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Section 2000e—5(f)(1) simply requires the EEOC to issue a notice of right-to-sue if it has failed to file suit or arrange a conciliation agreement within 180 days. Nowhere does the statute prohibit the EEOC from issuing such notice before the expiration of the 180-day period.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “compliance with formal filing requirements set forth by state law will not be determinative of federal rights.”
    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.