Honeycutt v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
861 F.2d 1346 · 1988
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Aslanidis v. United States Lines, Inc. (1993), Sojourner T v. Edwards (1992)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 101 (Accountant, Compliance, and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003) · 5 U.S.C. § 102 · 5 U.S.C. § 104 · 5 U.S.C. § 105
Relies on Brown v. General Services Administration · Library of Congress v. Shaw · Lehman v. Nakshian · Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans · Schiavone v. Fortune
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an Executive Department, a Government corporation, [or] an independent establishment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when (1) relation back is permitted by the law that provides the statute of limitations applicable to the action, or (2) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, or (3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted if the foregoing provision (2) is satisfied and within the period provided by Rule 4(m) [with 120 days following the filing of the complaint] for service of the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment (A) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (B) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party. 37”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The AAFES is a Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (“NAFI”) of the United States operating under the Department of Defense. It is directed by a board of directors composed of Army and Air Force members. In the Department of Defense Directive 1401.1-M, Personnel Policy Manual for NAFI’s, NAFI employees are stated to be federal employees within the Department of Defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.