Jones v. Intermountain Power Project’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.2d 546 · 1986
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 22 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly (1990), Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County (1993)
21 federal appellate · 22 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 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Bell v. Hood · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]ur ‘examination of the ... specific statute that confers jurisdiction over the federal claim’ reveals nothing to suggest an intent to negate pendent jurisdiction. When Title VII is construed together with the long-standing presumption in favor of pendent jurisdiction and district courts’ broad discretion to assume jurisdiction over pendent claims, we find nothing unclear about Title VII. Against the backdrop of the volume of pendent jurisdiction cases, one would be surprised if Congress did not deal expressly with the issue if it intended to change the general law. It did not do so here. Moreover, Congress has twice rejected amendments making Title VII an exclusive remedy. Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that Title VII claims may be joined with other federal claims for discrimination even though the other federal claims provide for a jury trial and a full range of legal as well as equitable remedies. The notion that expedited disposition is one of the congressional objectives in Title VII cases is too thin a reed on which to hang some imagined congressional intent to repeal pendent claims jurisdiction. Id. at 552 . (citations omitted)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... a finding that federal and nonfederal claims arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact,” the test of Gibbs , does not end the inquiry into whether a federal court has power to hear the nonfederal claims along with the federal ones. Beyond this constitutional minimum, there must be an examination of the posture in which the nonfederal claim is asserted and of the specific statute that confers jurisdiction over the federal claim, in order to determine whether “Congress in [that statute] has ... expressly or by implication negated” the exercise of jurisdiction over the particular nonfederal claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once a trial is held . . . this court will order dismissal of a pendent claim on remand only when the federal cause of action was so insubstantial and devoid of merit that there was no federal jurisdiction to hear it.”
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.