Crawford v. Duke’s Empirical Analysis
867 F.3d 103 · 2017
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki · Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor · Park v. Howard University · Hamilton v. Geithner · Brown v. Marsh
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We generally 'permit[ ] courts to consider supplemental material filed by a pro se litigant in order to clarify the precise claims being urged' in her complaint.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. Brennan“'sufficient information' to put the agency on notice of the claim and to 'enable the agency to investigate' it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McIver v. Mattis
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.