Funk v. Sperry Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
842 F.2d 1129 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2003 · most notably Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996), Soo Cheol Kang v. U. Lim America, Inc. (2002)
16 federal appellate · 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on 36 Cal. 3d 752 - Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw · Ashton v. Cory · 116 Cal. App. 3d 311 - Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc. · Cleary v. American Airlines, 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). 6 The jury found in plaintiffs' favor on two theories, absence of just cause and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The majority's implicit acknowledgment that the record evinced no lack of good faith by Parker renders the verdict clearly erroneous on both counts. As explained above, the instruction on just cause demanded a verdict for Parker if the jury determined that company officials reasonably believed plaintiffs had smoked marijuana on the rig. The instruction on the good faith issue stated the same proposition even more clearly:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence of improper purpose on the part of the defendant[s], or of the defendant[s'] actual or constructive knowledge of the deceptive nature of [their] conduct,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to move to, from, or within California by misrepresentation of the nature, length or physical conditions of the employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cunico v. Bowie
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.