Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 851 F.2d 146 - Andrews v. Orr

Andrews v. Orr’s Empirical Analysis

851 F.2d 146 · 1988

Citation profile

228
cited by 228 later decisions
4
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

83 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 228 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Dunlap v. United States (2001), Amini v. Oberlin College (2001)

83 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

14301988199020002010decided

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. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker

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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the petitioner’s lack of notice of the filing requirement; (2) the petitioner’s lack of constructive knowledge of the filing requirement; (3) diligence in pursuing one’s rights; (4) absence of prejudice to the respondent; and (5) the petitioner’s reasonableness in remaining ignorant of the legal requirement for filing his claim.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “We also agree with the district court’s conclusions concerning the plaintiffs’ attempt to gain classwide relief. The courts of appeals that have dealt with the issue appear to be in unanimous agreement that the pendency of a previously filed class action does not toll the limitations period for additional class actions by putative members of the original asserted class.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Plaintiffs may not piggyback one class action onto another and thus toll the statute of limitations indefinitely.”
    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.