Doe v. Ball’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 101 (Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007) · 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 5001 · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Paul v. Davis · Mindes v. Seaman · Prewitt v. United States Postal Service · Johnson v. Alexander · Gonzalez v. Department of Army
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]ursuant to the remedial scheme of Title VII, a private action [under the Rehabilitation Act] may not be commenced until administrative remedies are exhausted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Garrett“is insufficient to state a constitutional claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Garrett“has no remedy under the Rehabilitation Act,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Garrett
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.