Velazquez v. Chardon’s Empirical Analysis
736 F.2d 831 · 1984
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 39 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1989), Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp. (1998)
27 federal appellate · 39 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans · Robert C. Hahn v. Francis W. Sargent · Chardon v. Fumero Soto · Stepanischen v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Corp. · Fernandez v. Chardon
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A continuing violation is not stated if all that appears from the complaint is that the plaintiff continues to suffer from the ongoing effects of some past act of discrimination ... it was incumbent upon him to allege facts giving some indication that the later refusals were themselves separate civil rights violations.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the discrimination alleged is a single act, the statute begins to run at the time of the act. If, on the other hand, the statutory violation does not occur at a single moment but in a series of separate acts and if the same alleged violation was committed at the time of each act, then the limitations period begins anew with each violation and only those violations preceding the filing of the complaint by the full limitations period are foreclosed. Similarly, if the statutory violation occurs as a result of a continuing policy, itself illegal, then the statute does not foreclose an action aimed at the company’s enforcement of the policy within the limitations period.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This Circuit has yet to rule squarely on this issue, and we prefer not to do so in the absence of a concrete factual situation____ [A]t least one member of the panel doubts whether the “continuing violations” theory should operate to allow recovery with respect to a distinct act of discrimination taking place at an identifiable point of time outside the limitations period. It may be that the continuing violation theory is more appropriately limited to a situation where there is no single act of discrimination sufficient to trigger the running of the limitations period.”
1 later decision 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.