Greenwood v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
778 F.2d 448 · 1985
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 20 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Jett v. Dallas Independent School District (1989), Malhotra v. Cotter & Co. (1989)
59 federal appellate · 20 district · 7 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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Edelman v. Jordan · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers
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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Courts typically look at the degree of local autonomy and control and most importantly whether the funds to pay any award will be derived from the state treasury.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The purpose behind this exception is to prevent frustration of the goals of Title VII by not requiring procedural exact ness in stating the charge.” Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers’, 657 F.2d 890 , 905 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1017 , 102 S.Ct. 1710 , 72 L.Ed.2d 134 (1982). A suit is not barred “where there is sufficient identity of interest between the respondent and the defendant to satisfy the intention of Title VII that the defendant have notice of the charge and the EEOC have an opportunity to attempt conciliation.” Romero v. Union Pacific R.R., 615 F.2d [1303] at 1311 [ (10th Cir.1980) ].”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The filing of an EEOC charge is unnecessary where an unnamed party has been provided with adequate notice of the charge, under circumstances where the party has been given the opportunity to participate in conciliation proceedings aimed at voluntary compliance.”
5 later decisions 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.