Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 F.3d 1398 - Jones v. Runyon

Jones v. Runyon’s Empirical Analysis

91 F.3d 1398 · 1996

Citation profile

126
cited by 126 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 60 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Aramburu v. Boeing Co. (1997), Mackenzie v. Denver City and County of (2005)

31 federal appellate · 60 district ·

640199620002010decided

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

Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United Distribution Cos. · Department of the Treasury v. Federal Labor Relations Authority · Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. American Train Dispatchers Ass'n

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

  1. “[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies is a `jurisdictional prerequisite' to suit under Title VII.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “satisfy all jurisdictional prerequisites with respect to the underlying claim of discrimination.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]hen an employee seeks judicial relief for incidents not listed in his original charge to the EEOC, the judicial complaint nevertheless may encompass any discrimination like or reasonably related to the allegations of the EEOC charge, including new acts occurring during the pendency of the charge before the EEOC. Further, an act committed by an employer in retaliation for the filing of an EEOC complaint is reasonably related to that complaint, obviating the need for a second EEOC complaint.”
    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.