Washington v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.2d 1237 · 1984
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Messner v. Northshore University HealthSystem (2012), Ball v. City of Chicago (1993)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Link v. Wabash Railroad · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Waldschmidt v. Ranier · Fallen v. United States · Inryco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Engineering 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... Rule 41(b) serves not only to protect defendants but also to aid courts in keeping administrative control over their own dockets and to deter other litigants from engaging in similar dilatory behavior. Stevens v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 710 F.2d 1224, 1230-31 (7th Cir.1983). The Supreme Court did not require a demonstration of prejudice in Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), the seminal case upholding a sua sponte dismissal for want of prosecution, and we will not require such a showing in this case.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[F]ailure to prosecute under the rule does not mean that the plaintiff must have taken any positive steps to delay the trial or prevent it from being reached by the regular machinery of the court. It is quite sufficient if he does nothing, knowing that until something is done there will be no trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellate review of a Rule 41(b) dismissal order for failure to prosecute is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's actions. 'No exact rule can be laid down as to when a court is justified in dismissing a case for failure to prosecute. Each case must be looked at with regard to its own particular procedural history and the situation at the time of dismissal.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.