green
Positive treatment
2.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Fanchon Blake v. City of Los Angeles
(See Washington v. Davis, supra, 426 U.S. at 255-56, 96 S.Ct. 2040 (Stevens, J., concurring); but see National Education Association v. South Carolina (1978) 434 U.S. 1026 , 98 S.Ct. 756 , 54 L.Ed.2d 775 (White, J., dissenting from summary affirmance).) If employers were permitted to validate selection devices without reference to job performance, then non-job-related selection devices could always be validated through the simple expedient of employing them at both the pre-training and training stage.
cited
Cited "see"
Opinion No.
See United States v. State of South Carolina, 445 F. Supp. 1094 (D.S.C. 1977), aff'd mem., 434 U.S. 1026 (1978) (test validation requires expert knowledge).
cited
Cited "see"
Hershel CLADY, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee
See National Education Assoc, v. South Carolina, 434 U.S. 1026 , 98 S.Ct. 756 , 54 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978), aff'g mem.
discussed
Cited "see"
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
See United States v. State of South Carolina, 445 F. Supp. 1094 (D.Sx' 1977). aff'd mem., 434 U.S. 1026 (1978) (test validation requires expert knowlec See also Note, Minimum Competency Testing of Teac'%rs for Certification: Due Process, Equal Protection and Title VII 1; lications 70 Cornell L.Rev. 494 (1985). -- However, we advise that the:board s discretion should not be exercised in an arbitrary or capricixls manner.
cited
Cited "see"
Davis v. Buffalo Psychiatric Center
See United States v. State of South Carolina, 445 F.Supp. 1094, 1100 (D.S.C.1977), aff'd, 434 U.S. 1026 , 98 S.Ct. 756 , 54 L.Ed.2d 775 (1976); Percy v. Brennan, 384 F.Supp. 800, 809 (S.D.N.Y.1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Life of the Land v. LAND USE COM'N, ETC.
Ind. 1975), dismissed on other grounds, 437 F. Supp. 505 (N.D.Ind. 1977); accord, United States v. South Carolina, 445 F. Supp. 1094 (D.S.C. 1978),aff'd, 434 U.S. 1026 (1978);see Dierks v. Thompson, 414 F.2d 453, 456 (1st Cir. 1969); cf. Hopson v. Schilling, 418 F. Supp. 1223, 1238-39 (N.D.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Vanguard Justice Society, Inc. v. Hughes
See also United States v. South Carolina, 445 F.Supp. 1094, 1111-1112 (D.C.S.C.1978) (three judge court) aff’d mem, 434 U.S. 1026 , 98 S.Ct. 756 , 54 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); Ass’n.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dolwig
v.
United States Witt v. Florida Warriner v. Florida Crum v. Walter H. Bryan, Inc. Stuart v. Arkansas Smith v. White Stores, Inc. Zilka v. Walker West v. Smith Baloun v. United States
v.
United States Witt v. Florida Warriner v. Florida Crum v. Walter H. Bryan, Inc. Stuart v. Arkansas Smith v. White Stores, Inc. Zilka v. Walker West v. Smith Baloun v. United States
No. 77-517; No. 77-5026; No. 77-5235; No. 77-5438; No. 77-5498; No. 77-5514; No. 77-5542; No. 77-5558; No. 77-5618.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1978.
434 U.S. 1026
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ante, p. 956;
ante, p. 935;
ante, p. 870;
ante, p. 942;
ante, p. 942;
ante, p. 958;
ante, p'. 973;
ante, p. 973; and
ante, p. 974. Petitions for rehearing denied.