Anson v. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston’s Empirical Analysis
962 F.2d 539 · 1992
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Mooney v. Aramco Services Co. (1995), Gary Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corporation Ge Montgomery Ward Credit Services Inc American Association of Retired Persons (2001)
13 federal appellate · 2 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 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 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)
Relies on Naton v. Bank of California · LaChapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. · City of Lockport v. United States · McCorstin v. United States Steel Corp. · Almendral v. New York State Office of Mental Health
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“opt-in to a suit filed by any similarly situated plaintiff under certain conditions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We hold simply that a district court does not err in denying intervention to one whose claim had not yet arisen at the time of the filing by another of an administrative charge which alleges only past personal complaints regarding one who employs as many as 2,500 people____ Anson's charge of discrimination towards himself alone did not on its face suffice to alert either the EEOC or the Defendants to Parker’s potential allegations,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Section 216(b), an employee may become an 'opt-in' party plaintiff to an already filed suit by filing written consent with the court where the suit is pending.”
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.