Swan v. Clinton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 47 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[n]either the general federal question statute nor the mandamus statute by itself waives sovereign immunity!,] • • • sovereign immunity does not apply as a bar to suits alleging that [a government] officer’s actions were unconstitutional or beyond statutory authority, on the grounds that “where the officer’s powers are limited by statute, his actions beyond those limitations are considered individual and not sovereign actions.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. League of Conservation Voters v. Trump · Texas Border Coalition v. Napolitano

2. “Although Swan has not included the Chairman, other NCUA Board members or the Board Secretary as defendants in this action, it seems indisputable that he would have done so had he thought that suit against the President, Nash [an assistant to the President], and Hoyle [the Executive Director of NCUA] would not be sufficient to provide the relief he desires. At oral argument Swan's counsel asked that we read Swan's request “for such additional relief as the court shall deem just and proper” to encompass relief against subordinate branch officials not named as parties. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that a court has power under the All Writs Act to issue commands that apply to "persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice.” United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 , 98 S.Ct. 364, 373 , 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a). Thus, we think that it would elevate form over substance in a case of this dimension not to treat Swan's complaint as if it also sought injunctive or declaratory relief against these individuals in their official capacity. Injunctive relief against Hoyle and these added defendants could on balance substantially redress Swan’s injury and is sufficient to satisfy the redressability requirement of standing. While these officials cannot officially remove Wheat [the person appointed to replac”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Knight First Amendment Inst. At Columbia Univ. v. Trump · 56 F. Supp. 2d 1226 - Made in the USA Foundation v. United States

3. “it might appear that this case represents one of those rare instances where .. . only injunctive relief against the President himself will redress Swan’s injury, because only the President has the power to remove or reinstate NCUA Board members,” the, court found that, in the alternative, it could order NCUA staff members to treat the plaintiff as a”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Dist. of Columbia v. Trump · 56 F. Supp. 2d 1226 - Made in the USA Foundation v. United States