Minton v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 54
Minton v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 54, 501 U.S. 1208 (1991)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 6 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(concluding that opposite-sex surveillance of male inmates is constitutionally permissible because minimal intrusions on prisoner’s privacy were outweighed by institutional concerns for safety and equal employment opportunity)
-
(property owned and mortgage paid by resident's interstate trucking business, and used to put up truck drivers on layovers and to conduct business on weekends)
-
(a “staffing restriction does not violate Title VII” because “a minimal restriction such as the Unit 5 gender-based staffing restriction does not deprive female employees of any employment opportunities”)
-
(“Under this statute, intent may, and generally must, be proved circumstantially.”)
-
("[T]he same conduct may constitute a substantial step toward the commission of more than one charged crime, as long as that conduct strongly corroborates the actor's criminal purpose underlying each charged crime.")
Cited by 55 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.