Rucker v. Higher Educational Aids Board’s Empirical Analysis
669 F.2d 1179 · 1982
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably 36 Cal. 4th 1028 - Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC. (2005), Dey v. Colt Construction & Development Co. (1994)
66 federal appellate · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Quern v. Jordan · McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. · Alabama v. Pugh · United Steelworkers of America v. Weber
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is good faith and reasonableness, not the fact of discrimination, that is the critical inquiry in a retaliation case”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is essential to the analysis of § 704(a) to recognize its two different clauses: Discrimination by the specified respondents is forbidden against a specified type of person: (1) ‘because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this title’ (the ‘opposition’ clause); or (2) ‘because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title” (the ‘participation’ clause).” (footnotes omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) General provision (1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 794 of Title 29, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [ 42 U.S.C.A. § 6101 et seq.] title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance. (2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State. (b) Effective date The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall take effect with respect to violations that occur in whole or in part after October 21, 1986.”
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.