Folan v. STATE/DCYF’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2022
2 district · 16 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · College-Town, Division of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · 111 Wash. 2d 903 - Phillips v. City of Seattle · 552 So. 2d 1099 - Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc. · 107 Wash. 2d 563 - Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Such discrimination foments domestic strife and unrest, threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of the state, and undermines the foundations of a free democratic state. The denial of equal employment opportunities because of such discrimination and the consequent failure to utilize the productive capacities of individuals to their fullest extent deprive large segments of the population of the state of earnings necessary to maintain decent standards of living, necessitates their resort to public relief, and intensifies group conflicts, thereby resulting in grave injury to the public safety, health, and welfare.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that the Legislature did not intend the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act to bar the independent statutory claims created by the FEPA or the CRA ... the exclusivity clause of the Workers’ Compensation Act as interpreted by defendants could render the FEPA and the CRA nugatory and ineffective ... under our interpretation, the exclusivity clause does not bar a claim if to do so would frustrate a broad, fundamental public policy which fulfills paramount purposes, such as a claim under the FEPA or the CRA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“assure equal employment opportunities for all persons by eliminating discriminatory practices.”
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.