Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 F.3d 1007 - Mason v. Stallings

Mason v. Stallings’s Empirical Analysis

82 F.3d 1007 · 1996

Citation profile

120
cited by 120 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Shotz v. City of Plantation (2003), Butler v. City of Prairie Village (1999)

25 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions

540199620002010decided

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

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Busby v. City of Orlando · Miller v. Maxwell's International Inc. · U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd. · Birkbeck Jc v. Marvel Lighting Corporation

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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Individual capacity suits under -the relief granted under Title VII is against the employer, not individual employees whose actions would constitute a violation of the Act.... We think the proper method for a plaintiff to recover under Title VII is by suing the employer, either by naming the supervisory employees as agents of the employer or by naming the employer directly, 7”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Read literally, counts two and three seek the same relief against Lomax and High-tower in their individual capacities. The could not, however, be considered her employer; Fulton County is her employer. Accordingly, they cannot be held. liable under the ADEA or Title VII. We therefore construe counts two and three as applying only to Fulton County. Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he definition of `employer' in the Disabilities Act is like the definition[ ] in Title VII ... [, and t]his Circuit has previously held that there is no individual responsibility under either of those Acts”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.