Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 686 F.2d 806 - Nolan v. Cleland

Nolan v. Cleland’s Empirical Analysis

686 F.2d 806 · 1982

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
11
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 13 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Yartzoff v. Thomas (1987), Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp. (1996)

36 federal appellate · 13 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 11 states

5301982199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 701

Relies on Brown v. General Services Administration · Chandler v. Roudebush · Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. · Doyle v. Ohio · Johnson v. Bunny Bread 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[C]ourts have found constructive discharge based upon a continuous pattern of discriminatory treatment over a period of years[.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The holding of Brown, supra, is controlling on this issue and we feel that such holding cannot be circumvented where the factual predicate for Nolan’s due process claim is the discrimination which is the basis of her Title VII claim. The threshold question in Nolan’s action is the constructive discharge claim and she would not be able to recover on the due process claim due to the identical factual basis, and, therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the due process count and approached the action solely as a Title VII action pursuant to Brown, supra. (Emphasis added)”
    1 later decision 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.