Toney v. Block’s Empirical Analysis
705 F.2d 1364 · 1983
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2002 · most notably Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), Mungin v. Katten Muchin & Zavis (1997)
29 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 294 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“destructive of the purposes of [Title VII] to require the plaintiff to establish . . . the difficult hypothetical proposition that, had there been no discrimination, the employment decision would have been made in his favor”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the particular employment decision for which retroactive relief was sought,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The requirement of clear and convincing proof ... furthers Title VII’s deterrent purpose. By making it more difficult for employers to defeat successful plaintiffs’ claims to retroactive relief, the higher standard of proof may well discourage unlawful conduct by employers. In addition, the higher standard of proof is justified by the consideration that the employer is a wrongdoer whose unlawful conduct has made it difficult for the plaintiff to show what would have occurred in the absence of that conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bibbs v. Block
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.