Smith v. Horner’s Empirical Analysis
846 F.2d 1521 · 1988
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably 55 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1675, 57 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,952 Julio M. Cruz v. Department of the Navy (1991), Pueschel v. Peters (2009)
9 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 7703 · 5 U.S.C. § 8347
Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Bell v. Hood · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.
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.
“To hold otherwise, especially where, as here, petitioner was represented by counsel, would be to encourage tactics `designed to circumvent the Federal Circuit's effort to prevent litigants from seeking, in this area of review of government personnel decision,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge ... under this subchapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Smith could also be held precluded from litigating his Title VII claim because .... [he] had the opportunity to litigate both claims in a court of competent jurisdiction (here, the district court), but instead chose to split them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chappell v. Chao
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.