Easley v. Empire Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
757 F.2d 923 · 1985
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Hensley v. Eckerhart · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“formal application for a job will be excused when a known discriminatory policy ... deters potential jobseekers”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever any employee of any corporation doing business in this state shall be discharged or voluntarily quit the service of such corporation, it shall be the duty of the superintendent or manager of said corporation, upon the written request of such employee to him, if such employee shall have been in the service of said corporation for a period of at least ninety days, to issue to such employee a letter, duly signed by such superintendent or manager, setting forth the nature and character of service rendered by such employee to such corporation and the duration thereof, and truly stating for what cause, if any, such employee has quit such service; and if any such superintendent or manager shall fail or refuse to issue such letter to such employee when so requested by such employee, such superintendent or manager shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court has characterized the extent of a plaintiffs success as the “most critical factor” in adjusting fee awards, Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436 [ 103 S.Ct. at 1941 ], but has said that where claims go to common cores of facts and related legal theories, a district court is not required to mechanically apportion fees based on the number of issues on which the prevailing party was actually successful. Id. at 438 [ 103 S.Ct. at 1942 ]. The focus should be on “the significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Id. at 435 [ 103 S.Ct. at 1940 ].”
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.