Guy v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
812 F.2d 911 · 1987
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co. (1989), Carl v. Children's Hospital (1997)
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 332 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 333 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 334 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 374 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 30 U.S.C. § 1293 · 33 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Martinez v. California · Woods v. Interstate Realty Co. · 79 N.C. App. 483 - Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co. · Presnell v. Pell · 74 N.C. App. 331 - Sides v. Duke University
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is contrary to the public policy of the State of North Carolina to discriminate against employees based on race.” (Compl.f 48.) Plaintiffs' constructive discharge action can be interpreted as one alleging wrongful constructive discharge in viola-lion of North Carolina's policy against racial discrimination in employment as set forth in the Equal Employment Protection Act (EEPA). The EEPA explicitly provides that it is the "public policy of this State” to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race by employers who have 15 or more employees. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143-422.2. 2 . In Guy , the Fourth Circuit held that Sides "was intended to be a limited perjury exception.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The point is as simple as it is unavoidable: in diversity cases, when state law provides an answer, federal courts must abide by that law. North Carolina law does provide the answer in this case: outside of a few restricted limitations that do not apply, an employer may terminate an employee for any reason. Thus, Guy has no cause of action against Travenol. In applying state law, federal courts have always found the road straighter and the going smoother when, instead of blazing new paths, they restrict their travels to the pavement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he courts of North Carolina have recognized that every adverse employment decision presents a potentially litigable conflict of fact and perception, that the judicial resources of North Carolina should not generally be expended on such matters, and that the freedom of employers to dismiss employees perceived as unreliable or incompetent should not be lightly circumscribed.”
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.