United States v. City of Chicago’s Empirical Analysis
796 F.2d 205 · 1986
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2008
11 federal appellate ·
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. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts · Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Thurston · Meers v. Sundstrand Corp. · United States v. City of Chicago · United States v. Acres of Land More or Less Situated in County of State of Indiana
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The application must be timely. The intervenor must show an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action. The intervenor must show that the disposition may as a particular matter impair or impede the intervenor's ability to protect that interest. And, the intervenor must show that the interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The United States argues that the Baker petitioners’ motion to intervene is timely because “they had no reason to expect that the list would be exhausted of black males before it was exhausted of white males and females.” Since white males, females and minority males appeared on the eligibility list in roughly the same percentages, the United States argues, the Baker petitioners had reason to assume that no group would be exhausted before any other. But the fact that the Baker petitioners had some basis for assuming that they would ultimately be hired does not justify their waiting until this assumption was proved false to intervene. They knew their interests were compromised when the quotas for the 1981 exam were introduced and the rank ordering of scores — which favored non-minorities and had a disparate impact against minorities — was disregarded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The length of time the intervenor knew or should have known of his interest in this case, (2) the prejudice to the original party caused by the delay, (3) the resulting prejudice to the intervenor of the motion is denied, and (4) any unusual circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schultz v. Connery
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.