Dillman v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
784 F.2d 57 · 1986
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Kale v. Combined Insurance Co. of America (1988), English v. Pabst Brewing Co. (1987)
22 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 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 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Raphan v. United States · Easton v. United States · Mueller v. Allen · Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““is invoked in cases where the plaintiff knew of the existence of his cause of action but the defendant’s conduct caused him to delay bringing his lawsuit.” The doctrine properly may be invoked in a case in which the employer has misrepresented the length of the limitations period or in some other way has “lulled the plaintiff into believing that it was not necessary for him to commence litigation.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'in cases where the plaintiff knew of the existence of his cause of action but the defendant's conduct caused him to delay bringing his lawsuit,'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The essence of the doctrine ‘is that a statute of limitations does not run against a plaintiff who is unaware of his cause of action.’ ” Cerbone v. International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, 768 F.2d 45, 48 (2d Cir.1985), quoting Long v. Abbott Mortgage Corp., 459 F.Supp. 108, 113 (D.Conn.1978). The doctrine, however, is equitable in nature and will be applied, for example, when an employer’s misleading conduct is responsible for the employee’s unawareness of his cause of action. Cerbone, supra, 768 F.2d at 49-50 . Therefore, when an employer’s conduct is “extraordinary” enough, Miller, supra, 755 F.2d at 24 , equitable tolling will defer the start of the EEOC filing period from the time of the discriminatory action to the time the employee should have discovered the action’s discriminatory nature. 8”
2 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.