Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 938 F.2d 377 - Bolar v. Frank

Bolar v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis

938 F.2d 377 · 1991

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Trierweiler v. Croxton & Trench Holding Corp. (1996), Minnette v. Warner (1993)

11 federal appellate · 7 district ·

140199120002010decided

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. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman · General Telephone Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Rauch v. United States · Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board · Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, Inc. v. Califano

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

  1. “[A]n action [brought under this subchapter] may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not found within any such district, such an action may be brought within the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office.”
    6 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.