Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 940 F.2d 1211 - Bouman v. Block

Bouman v. Block’s Empirical Analysis

940 F.2d 1211 · 1991

Citation profile

170
cited by 170 later decisions
3
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

85 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 170 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Smith v. First Union National Bank (2000), Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad (2001)

85 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

8901991200020102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs

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

  1. “prevailing market rate in the relevant community ... [are] sufficient to establish the appropriate [billing] rate for lodestar purposes.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he whole point of a disparate impact challenge is that a facially non-discriminatory employment or promotion device' — in this case, an examination — has a discriminatory effect. It would be odd indeed if a defendant whose facially nondiscriminatory examination which has a disparate impact could escape the obligation to validate the examination merely by pointing to some other facially nondiscriminatory factor that correlates with the disparate impact. [The defendant’s] failure to validate cannot be excused simply by the correlation between success on the examination and experience.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that there were common questions in that `plaintiff is attacking defendants' discriminatory practices against females, and this is not just as it applied to plaintiff only.' This statement identifies a common legal issue, discrimination against women, and a common factual problem, discrimination as applied in the Sheriff's Department.”
    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.