Tesfaye v. Carr Park, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
April 2018
most recently cited
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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)
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The timing of the complaint and of the EEOC’s right to sue letter do not offend the rationale of the Martini decision, which acknowledges that ‘the statute ... authorizes a complainant to sue within 180 days if the EEOC dismisses the charge.... Nor is the plaintiff’s pre-180 day filing at odds with Martini’s public policy rationale: Martini was concerned that early authorization of private suits ‘undermines [the EEOC’s] statutory duty to investigate every charge filed,’ ... but here the EEOC apparently investigated the plaintiffs claim and simply concluded before 180 days had passed that it lacked merit.”
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.