Harris v. Amoco Production Co.’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.2d 669 · 1985
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements (1993), Jefferson v. Ingersoll International Inc. (1999)
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 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. § 2403 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 715 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 705 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 709 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000H
Relies on Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Sosna v. Iowa
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the party from whom discovery is sought shows `good cause,' the presumption of free use [of the material sought through discovery] dissipates, and the district court can exercise its sound discretion to restrict what materials are obtainable, how they can be obtained, and what use can be made of them once obtained”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“could have entered the order which [it] did.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The statute directs the EEOC to notify the respondent of the charge within 10 days, to investigate the charge, and to determine “as promptly as possible and, so far as practicable, not later than one hundred and twenty days from the filing of the charge” whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). If the EEOC finds no reasonable cause, then it must dismiss the charge. See id. If it finds reasonable cause, then it must attempt to resolve the dispute “by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. ” Id. “If within thirty days after a charge is filed ... the Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a civil action against any [non-governmental] respondent....” Id. § 2000e-5(f)(l).”
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.