London v. Coopers & Lybrand’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.2d 811 · 1981
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Parino v. Fhp, Inc., Lacey v. Maricopa County (2012)
72 federal appellate · 6 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 Conley v. Gibson · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Delaware State College v. Ricks · United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans · McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he natural effects of the allegedly discriminatory act are not regarded as 'continuing.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While we are not prepared to hold that retaliation for the filing of any charge with the EEOC will violate § 1981, we do hold that where, as here, a plaintiff charges an employer with racial discrimination in taking retaliatory action, a cause of action under § 1981 has been stated. If an employer retaliates against the former employee with the intent to perpetuate the original act of discrimination, or with some other racially discriminatory motive in mind, then interference with rights protected by § 1981 has occurred, and that section must come into play.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are well aware that other circuits do not look with favor upon this rule, ... but we as a panel are not at liberty to re-examine its validity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sol F. Marx Harry F. Crooks and Dallas D. Hann v. Loral Corporation, a New York Corporation Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., an Arizona Corporation Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, an Arizona Corporation, Sol F. Marx Harry F. Crooks and Dallas D. Hann, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Loral Corporation, a New York Corporation Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, an Arizona Corporation · Marx
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.