Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
670 F.2d 760 · 1982
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 14 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 193 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Library of Congress v. Shaw (1986), Webb v. Board of Education of Dyer County Tennessee (1985)
82 federal appellate · 14 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey · Copeland v. Marshall · Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
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 193 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a high priced, out of town attorney renders services which local attorneys could do as well, and there is no other reason to have them performed by the former, then the judge, in his discretion, might allow only an hourly rate which local attorneys would have charged for the same service. On the other hand, there are undoubtedly services which a local attorney may not be willing or able to perform. The complexity and specialized nature of a case may mean that no attorney, with the required skills, is available locally.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“We think this interpretation of Section 706(k) is too narrow. The plaintiffs at all times pursued their Title VII action. Their efforts to have the defendant debarred from its federal contracts on the basis of the same discrimination charged in the Title VII action were designed to move the Title VII case toward ultimate disposition. This desired effect was achieved, because the threat of debarment on account of discrimination caused the defendant to settle the Title VII action. Thus, the plaintiffs' pursuit of debarment was a service which contributed to the ultimate termination of the Title VII action, and in that sense was within the Title VII action. Id. at 767 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““If, however, a party does not find counsel readily available in that locality with whatever degree of skill may reasonably be required, it is reasonable that the party go elsewhere to find an attorney, and the court should make the allowance on the basis of the chosen attorney’s billing rate unless the rate customarily charged in that attorney’s locality for truly similar services is deemed to require an adjustment.” (Chrapliwy, 670 F.2d at 769 .)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.