Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Pennsylvania’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 969 · 1988
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 59 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1990), Rush v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc. (1997)
13 federal appellate · 59 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 705 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 709 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · United States v. Powell · Regents of the University of California v. Bakke · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n all cases of federal concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first has possession of the subject must decide it.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That authority, however, is not a mandate directing wooden application of the rule without regard to rare or extraordinary circumstances, inequitable conduct, bad faith, or forum shopping. District courts have always had discretion given appropriate circumstances justifying departure from the first filed rule.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he first-filed rule is 'grounded on equitable principles' and requires district court judges to 'fashion[ ] a flexible response to the issue of concurrent jurisdiction.'”
4 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.