Central R. v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
115 F.2d 968 · 1940
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1964
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co. · Greene v. Louisville & Interurban Railroad · Nashville St Ry v. Browning · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Babcock
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendants also urge that these suits were in substance brought against the State of New Jersey without its consent and therefore in violation of the Eleventh Amendment to the federal Constitution. It is clear that the injunctions granted in these cases run against the defendants as state officers and relate to their performance of duties imposed upon them by the statutes of the state. We have seen that their action is in accord with the statutes and the settled practices of the state and that these do not violate the federal Constitution. Under these circumstances it is settled that the suits are in reality suits against the state and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the district court. Worcester County [Trust] Co. v. Riley, 302 U. S. 292 , 58 S.Ct. 185 , 82 L.Ed. 268 . It is only in cases where state officers have attempted to enforce an unconstitutional law or to administer a valid law wrongfully that their acts have been held to be so disassociated from the state for which they purport to act as to permit a suit to be brought against them with respect to those acts. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 , 13 L.R.A.,N.S., 932, 14 Ann.Cas. 764; Greene v. Louisville & Interurban R. R. Co., 244 U.S. 499 , 37 S.Ct. 673 , 61 L.Ed. 1280 , Ann.Cas.1917E, 88.” 115 F.2d 968 at page 972.”
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.