Perez v. Laredo Junior College’s Empirical Analysis
706 F.2d 731 · 1983
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Sevier v. Turner (1984), Starrett v. Wadley (1989)
29 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Delaware State College v. Ricks · United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans · Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman · Chardon v. Fernandez
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the discrimination alleged is a single act, the statute begins to run at the time of the act. If, on the other hand, the statutory violation does not occur at a single moment but in a series of separate acts and if the same alleged violation was committed at the time of each act, then the limitations period begins anew with each violation and only those violations preceding the filing of the complaint by the full limitations period are foreclosed. Similarly, if the statutory violation occurs as a result of a continuing policy, itself illegal, then the statute does not foreclose an action aimed at the company’s enforcement of the policy within the limitations period.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Irwin v. State · Jackson v. Galan“Id. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held: 43 If the college has, since denying Perez additional pay, paid such compensation to another faculty member, who like Perez, has a doctorate degree outside his teaching field, then the statute does not bar his claim. If, however, any such practice ceased more than two years ago, Perez would be asserting neither a continuing violation manifested by a number of incidents nor a continuing unlawful policy or practice. 44 Id. at 735. In sum, Perez held that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'other faculty members of Laredo Junior College, similarly situated, have been compensated for doctoral degrees outside their teaching areas.' " Id. at 734 (emphasis in original) (quoting complaint). Plaintiff sought to show a continuing violation under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Plaintiff asserted that "each day he is not paid on the same basis as another faculty member is a separate violation of his constitutional rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dixon v. Anderson
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.