Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services’s Empirical Analysis
711 F.2d 1117 · 1983
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Local Number 93, International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland (1986), In Re Diana R Beard et Als
51 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 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. § 2000E (§ 701 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 Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver 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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`a prima facie case of employment discrimination through a statistical demonstration of disproportionate racial impact constitutes a sufficiently serious claim of discrimination to serve as a predicate for voluntary compromise containing race-conscious remedies’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[s]imply stated, the remedies provided by a Title VII settlement, especially those containing race-conscious relief, must be substantially related to the objective of eliminating the alleged instance of discrimination....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he sum of rights possessed by an intervenor, even if granted unconditional intervention, is not necessarily equivalent to that of a party in a case and depends upon the nature of the intervenor's interest.”
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.