Evans v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co.’s Empirical Analysis
696 F.2d 925 · 1983
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co. (1985), Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. (1986)
23 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 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 General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Hullum v. United States · Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc. · Jake ROWE Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee · John Martin Oatis, David Johnson, Sr., and R. T. Young v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may encompass any kind of discrimination like or related to allegations contained in the [EEOC] charge and growing out of such allegation during the pendency of the case before the Commission. In other words, the “scope” of the judicial complaint is limited to the “scope” of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“limits the application of 'across-the-board' suits based on allegations of pervasive discriminatory policies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir.1970), this court set forth what has been termed the “like or related” rule or “reasonable expectation” test which defines the scope or degree to which the discrimination alleged in a Title VII plaintiffs complaint can vary from that charged in the EEOC complaint and that investigated by the [Equal Employment Opportunity] Commission. In Sanchez , we held “that the allegations in a judicial complaint filed pursuant to Title VII ‘may encompass any kind of discrimination like or related to the allegations contained in the charge and growing out of such allegation during the pendency of the case before the Commission.’ ” Id. at 466 , quoting King v. Georgia Power Co., 295 F.Supp. 943, 947 (N.D.Ga.1968). The court further stated that “the ‘scope’ of the judicial complaint is limited to the ‘scope’ of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” Id.”
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.