Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 F.3d 1140 - Creative Goldsmiths of Washington Dc Incorporated Schlossberg v. State of Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury United States Trustee

Creative Goldsmiths of Washington Dc Incorporated Schlossberg v. State of Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury United States Trustee’s Empirical Analysis

119 F.3d 1140 · 1997

Citation profile

192
cited by 192 later decisions
May 2025
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 11 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 192 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason University (2005), In Re: Nvr, Lp, Debtor (1999)

47 federal appellate · 11 district ·

9401997200020102020decided

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

Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Hans v. State of Louisiana · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer · Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon

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

  1. “'passed pursuant to a constitutional provision granting Congress the power to abrogate?'”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “assertions in a state-instituted federal action, including those made with regard to a . . . proof of claim, amount to a compulsory counterclaim”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “In [§ 106], Congress unequivocally purports to say when states have no immunity from private suits in federal court. While 11 U.S.C. § 106 (b) may correctly describe those actions that, as a matter of constitutional law, constitute a state’s waiver of the Eleventh Amendment, it is nevertheless not within Congress’ power to abrogate such immunity by "deeming” a waiver. Rather, in the absence of a constitutional authorization, it lies solely within a state's sovereign power to waive its immuni1y voluntarily and to consent to federal jurisdiction. Only if it waives such immunity may a private citizen sue the state in federal court.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.