Williams v. Hidalgo’s Empirical Analysis
663 F.2d 183 · 1980
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2018
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 705 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey · Crist v. Cline L R · Coles v. Penny · Eastland v. Tennessee Valley Authority
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]ithin thirty days of receipt of notice of final action taken by [the employing agency] or by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mills v. Hayden · Wilson v. Peña“We conclude from the structure of section 2000e-16(e) that an aggrieved employee can bring an action in court after the department or agency has finally acted on his or her complaint, subject to the department or agency’s power to cut that right off after thirty days by issuing proper notice. When an agency or department has taken final action but has failed to issue a proper notice, we determine that an employee can bring an action in district court within a reasonable time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he fact that many Title VII complainants act pro se is a valid reason for requiring notice of the limitation in all notices of final agency action since one can never determine in advance whether an employee may thereafter proceed pro se.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Peña
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.