Women's Equity Action League v. Cavazos’s Empirical Analysis
879 F.2d 880 · 1989
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably National Wrestling Coaches Ass'n v. Department of Education (2004), Competitive Enterprise Institute v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1990)
12 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 20 U.S.C. § 1684 (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 28 U.S.C. § 293 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Allen v. Wright · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization · Cannon v. University of Chicago
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs in this action, beyond question, are the intended beneficiaries of the statutes under which they sue. If, as they charge, administrative action is legally inadequate under the legislation they invoke, judicial review would serve to promote rather than undermine the separation of powers, for it helps to prevent the executive branch from ignoring congressional directives. As stated in incisive commentary: It would be ironic indeed if article III were interpreted to preclude federal courts from compelling regulatory agencies to adhere to the will of Congress by undertaking enforcement action to the degree or of the nature that statutes require.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have heretofore determined ... that federal funding of facilities that engage in proscribed discrimination is in part causative of the perpetuation of such discrimination, and that “initiating federal fund termination proceedings [is] highly effective in gaining compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws.” ... Furthermore, due respect for the legislative branch requires us to recognize that vigorous enforcement of laws Congress designed for plaintiffs’ benefit has the potential to redress in meaningful measure plaintiffs’ injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]s Congress passed the [Fair Labor Standards] Act partly to provide redress to employers from unfair competition, the suggestion that effective enforcement of the Act will not have this effect directly contravenes the congressional judgment underlying the Act.”
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.