923 F. Supp. 2d 294 - Mack v. WP Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 district ·

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

1. “When the date that a right-to-sue notice was received is unknown or disputed, courts routinely presume that the notice was received either three days or five days after it was mailed. Nkengfack v. Am. Ass’n of Retired Persons, 818 F.Supp.2d 178, 181 (D.D.C.2011); Ruiz v. Vilsack, 763 F.Supp.2d [168], at 171 [(D.D.C.2011)]. Receipt within three days is usually presumed, based on Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. [147] at 148 n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 1723 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) ] (stating that “presumed date of receipt” is three days after issuance of right-to-sue letter and citing Rule 6); Smith-Haynie v. Dist. of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575, 579 (D.C.Cir.1998) (same, citing Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. at 148 & n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 1723 ). Courts have employed a more generous five-day presumption instead where particular circumstances made that presumption more reasonable. See, e.g., Nkengfack v. Am. Ass’n of Retired Persons, 818 F.Supp.2d at 181 ; Ruiz v. Vilsack, 763 F.Supp.2d at 171; Washington v. White, 231 F.Supp.2d 71, 75 (D.D.C.2002).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 208 F. Supp. 3d 311 - Bartlette v. Hyatt Regency