Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 709 F.2d 251 - Katz v. Dole

Katz v. Dole’s Empirical Analysis

709 F.2d 251 · 1983

Citation profile

329
cited by 329 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

132 federal appellate · 55 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 329 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson (1986), Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998)

132 federal appellate · 55 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 12 states

178019831990200020102020decided

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. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 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 · City of Los Angeles Department of Water v. Manhart · Henson v. City of Dundee · Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Lyman Lamb 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 329 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “knew or should have known of the harassment, and took no effectual action to correct the situation.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “by proving that complaints about the harassment were lodged with the employer or that the harassment was so pervasive that employer awareness may be inferred.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In the event [plaintiff] prevails on this appeal, and subsequently is reinstated ... the award of injunctive or declaratory relief could be appropriate. In addition, even if [plaintiff] does not regain her job, [she] might be entitled to nominal damages and attorneys fees. See Joshi v. Florida State University, 646 F.2d 981 , 991 n. 33 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 972 , 102 S.Ct. 2233 , 72 L.Ed.2d 845 (1982).”
    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.