Coates v. Bechtel’s Empirical Analysis
811 F.2d 1045 · 1987
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably United States v. Balistrieri (1992), Ronald Alexander (2000)
18 federal appellate · 3 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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Hughes v. Rowe · City of Riverside v. Rivera · Munson v. Friske
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a matter of well-settled agency law, a principal may be held liable for the discriminatory acts of his agent if such acts are within the scope of the agent's apparent authority, even if the principal neither authorized nor ratified the acts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Hughes standard was designed to strike a careful balance between the desire to encourage private litigants with valid claims to bring suit to vindicate civil rights and the need to deter frivolous actions brought primarily to harass the defendant without hope of success. As a result, district courts may grant attorney’s fees under § 1988 to prevailing defendants “only in very circumscribed situations.” Hershinow, 772 F.2d at 395 . The Supreme Court has cautioned against post hoc reasoning which equates the plaintiff's failure to prevail with the conclusion that his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation. Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 421-422 [ 98 S.Ct. at 700-701 ], To avoid discouraging “all but the most airtight claims,” the district court must evaluate whether the plaintiffs action was “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation” as of the- time that the plaintiff filed suit, not with “hindsight logic” after judgment has been entered against him. Id. at 422 [98 S.Ct. at .700]. “Even when the law or the facts appear questionable or unfavorable at the outset, a party may have an entirely reasonable ground for bringing suit.” Id. On the other hand, when a civil rights suit is lacking in any legal or factual basis, Tarkowski [v. County of Lake], 775 F.2d [173] at 176 [7th Cir.1985], an award of fees to the defendant is clearly appropriate to deter frivolous filings and to ensure that the ability of the courts to remedy civil rights violations is not res”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen a civil rights suit is lacking in any legal or factual basis ..., an award of fees to the defendant is clearly appropriate to deter frivolous filings and to ensure that the ability of the courts to remedy civil rights violations is not restricted by dockets crowded with baseless litigation.”
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.