Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 652 F.2d 1176 - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American National Bank

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American National Bank’s Empirical Analysis

652 F.2d 1176 · 1981

Citation profile

156
cited by 156 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

68 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 156 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Segar v. Smith (1984), Armbruster v. Quinn (1983)

68 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 state decisions

95019811990200020102020decided

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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “should be extremely cautious in drawing any conclusions”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]s a general rule for ... large samples, if the difference between the expected value and the observed number is greater than two or three standard deviations, then the hypothesis that the [disparity] was random would be suspect to a social scientist.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[ W]here there is substantial, if not complete identity of parties before the EEOC and the court, it would require an unnecessarily technical and restrictive reading of [the statute] to deny jurisdiction.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.