Lavery v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis
918 F.2d 1022 · 1990
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Jorge v. Rumsfeld (2005), Al Burzynski, Administrator of the Estate of Alfred W. Halevan, Deceased v. William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense (2001)
14 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company · Lehman v. Nakshian
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[t]he ADEA and Title VII share a common purpose, the elimination of discrimination in the workplace .... ” In fact, the ADEA amendment prohibiting federal-sector age discrimination was patterned after 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a), (b), the amendments to Title VII extending that statute’s protection to federal employees. The federal employment age discrimination amendment was thus intended to be “‘substantially similar to’ ” the federal workplace counterpart in Title VII.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The legislative history of section 633a is silent with regard to why the thirty-day limitations period was ultimately left out. We are not free to ascribe deliberateness to Congress’ omission in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that the provision was explicitly debated and rejected____ We simply do not know why Congress left out the thirty-day limitations provision before passing the amendment. Without an explanation, “we find this deletion alone an ambiguous indication of Congressional purpose and draw no conclusion from it.” Rastelli v. Warden, 782 F.2d 17 , 24 n. 3 (2d Cir.1986). Absent evidence one way or the other, human error is as likely the cause for the omission as deliberation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If any of your claims were based on the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. § 633a), AS TO THOSE CLAIMS ONLY, you MAY have up to six years after the right of action first accrued in which to file a civil action.”
2 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.