Antol v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
82 F.3d 1291 · 1996
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 27 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Kneipp v. Tedder (1996), Barbara Sheridan v. Ei Dupont De Nemours and Company Jacques Amblard (1996)
31 federal appellate · 27 district · 2 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
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Cort v. Ash · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fairly within the scope of the ... EEOC complaint, or the investigation arising therefrom.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a)(1) The United States has an obligation to assist veterans of the Armed Forces in readjusting to civilian life since veterans, by virtue of their military service, have lost opportunities to pursue education and training oriented towards civilian careers.... It is, therefore, the policy of the United States and the purpose of this section to promote the maximum of employment and job advancement opportunities within the Federal Government for disabled veterans and certain veterans of the Vietnam Era and of the post-Vietnam Era who are qualified for such employment and advancement. ❖ * # * ‡ * (c) Each agency shall include in its affirmative action plan for the hiring, placement, and advancement of handicapped individuals in such agency as required by section 501(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791(b)), a separate specification of plans ... to promote and carry out such affirmative action with respect to disabled veterans in order to achieve the purpose of this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There may be many reasons why Congress chose not to provide for private suits ... under VEVRA to enforce § 4214(c). We will not speculate as to those reasons. Regardless of whether we would agree with those reasons, Congress did not intend a private right of action, and we cannot create one under the guise of statutory construction.”
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.