Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 912 F.2d 517 - Jensen v. Frank

Jensen v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis

912 F.2d 517 · 1990

Citation profile

188
cited by 188 later decisions
4
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

80 federal appellate · 80 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 188 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Morris v. Government Development Bank (1994), DeNovellis v. Shalala (1997)

80 federal appellate · 80 district · 11 state decisions

10101990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Delaware State College v. Ricks · Brown v. General Services Administration · United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Harris v. McRae

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

  1. “a number of discriminatory acts emanat[e] from the same discriminatory animus, [with] each act constituting a separate wrong actionable under Title VII.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A systemic violation has its roots in a discriminatory policy or practice; so long as the policy or practice itself continues into the limitation period, a challenger may be deemed to have filed a timely complaint.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “at the least, not only that he had no reason to be aware of his employer's improper motivation when the putative violation occurred, but also that the employer actively misled him and that he relied on the (mis)conduct to his detriment.”
    5 later decisions 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.