Price v. Litton Business System, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.2d 963 · 1982
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 13 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co. (1987), Meyer v. Riegel Products Corp. (1983)
63 federal appellate · 13 district · 9 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
Relies on Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Delaware State College v. Ricks · Chardon v. Fernandez · 103 S. Ct. 247 - Beneficial Finance of Kansas, Inc. v. United States · Easton v. United States
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statute of limitations will not be tolled on the basis of equitable estoppel unless the employee's failure to file in a timely fashion is the consequence either of a deliberate design by the employer or of actions that the employer should unmistakably have understood would cause the employee to delay filing his charge.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this circumstance, as the Supreme Court made clear in Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 , 101 S.Ct. 498 , 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980), the filing period runs from the time at which the employee is informed of the allegedly discriminatory employment decision, regardless of when the effects of that decision come to fruition. Accord Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6 , 102 S.Ct. 28 , 78 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981). Therefore, Price’s claim did not arise, as he suggests, on May 30 when he finally left the company; rather, the 180-day period began to run on February 5 when he was told he would be relieved of his position and the November filing with the EEOC was thus time-barred.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n employee's hope for ... a continuing employment relationship ... cannot toll the statute absent some employer conduct likely to mislead an employee into sleeping on his rights.”
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.