111 F. Supp. 2d 1097 - Floyd v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396K (§ 1912 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs argue that the relief they seek is prospective in the sense that a designated portion of future settlement proceeds would be paid to plaintiffs, rather than to the state treasury ... It is wholly irrelevant that payments will be made in fixed future installments rather than a lump sum. Allowing plaintiffs to recover a portion of the settlement funds would be the functional equivalent of retrospective monetary damages paid from the state treasury because the amount, obligation and ownership of the funds was fixed when the Master Settlement Agreement was signed, rather than upon receipt of the funds. Therefore, even if the proceeds are paid in installments, the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs from gaining access to the fund through suit in federal court.”
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.