Duncan v. Rolm Mil-Spec Computers & Loral Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
917 F.2d 261 · 1990
Citation profile
26 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably United States ex rel. McKenzie v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. (1997), 984 F. Supp. 1075 - Stubl v. T.A. Systems, Inc. (1997)
26 federal appellate ·
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 MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield · Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp. · Lee v. Georgia · Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because other statutory language indicates a contrary legislative intent, we hold that use of the word “may” in section 408.481(1) does not permit a claimant to file a civil action prior to seeking administrative relief. The preamble also clearly states that one of the purposes of the act is to provide for settlement of disputes regarding wages. The Michigan Court of Appeals has stated, "In order to provide for an expeditious settlement of a dispute regarding wages or fringe benefits the Act also provides that disputes are to be handled, initially, by the Department of Labor.” Carpenter v. School Dist. Of City of Flint, 115 Mich.App. 683, 687 , 321 N.W.2d 772, 774 (1982) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws 408.481).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]ourts should give the ordinary and accepted meaning to the mandatory word 'shall' and the permissive word 'may' unless to do so would clearly frustrate legislative intent as evidenced by other statutory language or by reading the statute as a whole.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to negate the legitimacy of any expectation [the employee] may have had based on [his manager's] representations.”
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.