Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 905 F.2d 1457 - Pan American World Airways Inc Maternity Leave Practices Flight Attendant Weight Program Litigation Leonard v. Pan American World Airways Inc Gardner

Pan American World Airways Inc Maternity Leave Practices Flight Attendant Weight Program Litigation Leonard v. Pan American World Airways Inc Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

905 F.2d 1457 · 1990

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
October 2023
most recently cited

28 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Jones v. Apfel (1999), National Association of Government Employees v. City Public Service Board of San Antonio Texas

28 federal appellate ·

2801990200020102020decided

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 (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 45 U.S.C. § 153 (Railway Labor Act)

Relies on Hormel v. Helvering · Elgin Ry Co v. Burley · General Electric Co. v. Gilbert · Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Rush Pettway, Etc. v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor

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

  1. “[I]f a party hopes to preserve a claim, argument, theory, or defense for appeal, [the party] must first clearly present it to the district court, that is, in such a way as to afford the district court an opportunity to recognize and rule on it.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “What [the airline] did say [to the district court] suggested a much different argument, namely, that because White had continued working past the point at which the district court, in its liability-phase opinion, had said that business necessity might have justified requiring pregnant attendants to stop flying (twenty weeks), she had violated a part of the stop policy that the district court had upheld....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.