Doll v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
75 F.3d 1200 · 1996
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1996), Miller v. Runyon (1996)
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (§ 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. · Schneiderman v. United States
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The plaintiff in an ordinary tort case must prove not only that the defendant committed a wrongful act but also that the act injured the plaintiff, that is, made him worse off than he would have been had the defendant not acted. Both wrong and injury are elements of the plaintiffs case, which he thus must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, because, as we tirelessly repeat ... there is no tort without an injury. But, in the case of the statutory and constitutional torts of employment discrimination, the Supreme Court has held that the burden of proof on the issue of injury rests on the employer, the defendant, rather than the employee, the plaintiff.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Suppose there were five applicants for one job, the employer discriminated against four, all four were equally well qualified, and the fifth got the job. Would all four of the discriminated against applicants be entitled to back pay, one to the job, and the other three to front pay? Obviously not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. Potter“Congress has amended Title VII to convert mixed-motive cases to no-injury cases, but we may assume, without having to decide, that the Price Waterhouse approach survives in other types of discrimination cases.”
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.