Jaime Blum, Brij Kapur and James C. Spitsbergen, in 86-5349 v. Witco Chemical Corporation, in 86-5310’s Empirical Analysis
829 F.2d 367 · 1987
Citation profile
86 federal appellate · 44 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Smith v. City of Jackson (2005), Sharon Pollard v. E I Pont Nemours & Company (2001)
86 federal appellate · 44 district · 15 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 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 7604
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston · Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air · City of Riverside v. Rivera
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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'monetary equivalent of the equitable remedy of reinstatement'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a]t least five justices have indicated through the tenor of their opinions that the plaintiff has a significant burden to carry to justify a contingency multiplier”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'compensation for contingency must be based on the difference in market treatment of contingent fee cases as a class, rather than on an assessment of the”
3 later decisions 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.