Farmer v. Ara Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
660 F.2d 1096 · 1981
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris (1983), Rasimas v. Michigan Department of Mental Health (1983)
60 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Vaca v. Sipes · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · Ford Motor Co v. Huffman International Union United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implementworkers of America Ci
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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the scope of the EEOC investigation reasonably expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination,'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Local 1064 has erroneously argued that damages for emotional and mental distress were improperly awarded to the plaintiffs. Damages for emotional and mental distress may be awarded for the union’s breach of its duty of fair representation. Where, as in the present case, the union’s breach of its statutory duty results also from its wrongful participation in the breach of contract or from the negotiation of discriminatory contractual provisions, then the union may be held jointly and severally liable with the employer or its liability for damages may be apportioned to the extent that it shares responsibility for the damage. Here, the district court offset plaintiffs’ damages against Local 1064 by the amount each had received in settlement of her claims against the employer, so as to apportion damages between the employer and the union, (underlining added)”
2 later decisions 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.