Hicks v. Brown Group, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
902 F.2d 630 · 1990
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2010 · most notably CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries (2008), McKnight v. General Motors Corp. (1990)
73 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Carey v. Piphus · Griffin v. Breckenridge · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he right to make contracts would be rendered virtually meaningless unless it encompasses the right to be free from discriminatory deprivations of such contracts.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[g]iven Congress' acquaintance with and concern about the varied forms of southern intransigence, we doubt that it would have subscribed to an interpretation of Section 1981 that secures the equal right of the freedmen to make contracts at the formation stage, but then abandons them after the contract is formed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A prohibition against retaliation is a necessary adjunct to the anti-discriminatory provision itself. If an employee may be fired for complaining of discrimination, his right not to be discriminated against is surely vitiated.... The recognition of a right of action for retaliation under section 1981 is simply another application of a straightforward syllogism: if an employee is granted certain substantive rights against his or her employer, the employer may not punish the employee’s assertion of those rights, since this would allow the employer to take away a right to protection conferred by statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.