Forrester v. White’s Empirical Analysis
846 F.2d 29 · 1988
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Sims v. Mulcahy (1990), Williams v. Lane (1988)
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under Title VII, the petitioner must prove that she was discriminated against through disparate treatment based on an impermissible factor, or disparate impact of a neutral practice on a protected group. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 1824-26, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 , 335-36 & n. 15, 97 S.Ct. 1843 , 1854-55 & n. 15, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 , 429-32, 91 S.Ct. 849 , 853-54, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). In an Equal Protection claim, the petitioner faces the tougher standard of proving purposeful and intentional acts of discrimination based on her membership in a particular class not just on an individual basis. See generally Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 , 242, 96 S.Ct. 2040 , 2049, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 , 265, 97 S.Ct. 555 , 563, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 , 279, 99 S.Ct. 2282 , 2296, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“except where exceptional circumstances show a clear abuse of discretion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the trial court has great discretion in determining whether to grant a new trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Valbert v. Pass
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.