Preston v. Virginia’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission of City of New York · Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad · Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the instant case, Ms. Preston did not file a complaint with the EEOC regarding her retaliation claim, thus the EEOC has not investigated plaintiffs claim and the purpose of the precondition [permitting the EEOC first to attempt settlement of the grievance] has not been fulfilled. In addition, plaintiff does not forward any equitable basis which would convince the court to waive the procedural condition. This Court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs Title VII claim because plaintiff has neither fulfilled the purpose of filing with the EEOC nor has she shown why she need not comply with the filing requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To maintain a Title VII action in a federal court plaintiff must file a complaint with the EEOC and obtain a right-to-sue letter. Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) (1988). Without such a letter, and barring exceptional circumstances, the court cannot properly exercise its jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim.”
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.