Howard v. Pritzker’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.3d 430 · 2015
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2409A · 29 U.S.C. § 710 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 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. § 7607
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · United States v. Testan · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a suit against a federal official acting in an official capacity is a suit against the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horvath v. Dodaro“28 U.S.C. § 2401 (a) does not apply to Title VII civil actions brought by federal employees.”
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.