Cooper v. U.S. Postal Service’s Empirical Analysis
740 F.2d 714 · 1984
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2019 · most notably Schiavone v. Fortune (1986), Cooper v. United States Postal Service (1985)
56 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Ruby v. Secretary of the United States Navy · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · Ingram v. Kumar · Kirk v. Cronvich
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The problem [of knowing when an amendment shall relate back to the date of the original pleading] has arisen most acutely in certain actions by private parties against officers or agencies of the United States.... In several recent cases the claimants instituted timely action but mistakenly named as defendant the United States, the [federal agency], ... and a Secretary who had retired from the office.... Discovering their mistakes, the claimants moved to amend their complaints to name the proper defendant; by this time the statutory [period for filing a civil action] had expired. The motions were denied on the ground that the amendment "would amount to the commencement of a new proceeding and would not relate back in time as to avoid the statutory provision ... that suit be brought within [the statutory period]. Relation back is intimately connected with the policy of the statute of limitations. The policy of the statute limiting the time for suit against the Secretary of [a federal agency] would not have been offended by allowing relation back in the situations described above.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.