Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 886 F.2d 443 - Rys v. U.S. Postal Service

Rys v. U.S. Postal Service’s Empirical Analysis

886 F.2d 443 · 1989

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
December 2014
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 21 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Evelyn Bonilla and Rafael Colon v. Muebles Jj Alvarez Inc (1999), Rennie v. Garrett (1990)

19 federal appellate · 21 district ·

2601989199020002010decided

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 (§ 717 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)

Relies on Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Lehman v. Nakshian · Schiavone v. Fortune · Loeffler v. Frank

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

  1. “[where] a claimant has received inadequate notice, or where a motion for appointment of counsel is pending and equity would justify tolling the statutory period until the motion is acted upon, or where the court has led the plaintiff to believe that she had done everything required of her, ... [or] where affirmative misconduct on the part of a defendant lulled the plaintiff into inaction.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““You are further notified that if you file a civil action, YOU MUST NAME THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT HEAD AS THE DEFENDANT. Rule 25(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that you may describe the defendant by official title rather than by name. Failure to provide the NAME OR OFFICIAL TITLE of the agency head or, where appropriate, the department head, may result in the loss of any judicial redress to which you may be entitled. (Please note: For this purpose, Department means the overall national organization, such as the now defunct Department of Health, Education and Welfare, not the local administrative department where you might work.) You must be sure that the proper defendant is named when you file your civil action.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[h]ad [the plaintiff] relied upon and been misled by the EEOC letter, he would have named only the USPS. His inclusion of local department heads--in direct contravention to the EEOC's missive--belies his alleged reliance upon its instructions.”
    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.