Miller v. Runyon’s Empirical Analysis
77 F.3d 189 · 1996
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 7 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Wallace v. Kato (2007), Wallace v. Kato (2007)
31 federal appellate · 7 district · 15 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
Relies on Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. · Miller Brewing Co. v. Fort Worth Distributing Co. · Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Dickinson v. Heinold Securities, Inc. · McGuinness v. United States Postal Service
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“because of disability, irremediable lack of information, or other circumstances beyond his control just cannot reasonably be expected to sue in time.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“only if the illness in fact prevents the sufferer from managing his affairs and thus from understanding his legal rights and acting upon them.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Aggrieved persons who believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information must consult a Counselor prior to filing a complaint in order to try to informally resolve the matter. (1) An aggrieved person must initiate contact with a Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action. (2) The agency or the Commission shall extend the 45-day time limit in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when the individual shows that he or she was not notified of the time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that he or she did not know and reasonably should not have been [sic] known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence he or she was prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control from contacting the counselor within the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency or the Commission.”
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.