Pennoyer v. McConnaughy’s Empirical Analysis
140 U.S. 1 · 1891
Citation profile
117 federal appellate · 64 district · 92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 534 later decisions (66 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2002 · most notably Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908), Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984)
117 federal appellate · 64 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 30 states
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 Hans v. State of Louisiana · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · United States v. Lee · In re Ayers · Poindexter v. Greenhow
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 534 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘•The first class is where the suit is brought against the officers of the state, as representing the state’s action and liability, thus making' it, though not a party to the record, the real party against which the judgment will so operate as to compel it to specifically perform its contracts. Ex parte Ayers, 123 U. S. 443 , 8 Sup. Ct. 164 , 31 L. Ed. 216 ; Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711 , 2 Sup. Ct. 128 , 27 L. Ed. 448 ; Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769 , 2 Sup. Ct. 91 , 27 L. Ed. 468 ; Cunningham v. Railroad Co., 109 U. S. 446 , 3 Sup. Ct. 292 , 609, 27 L. Ed. 992 ; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52 , 6 Sup. Ct. 608 , 29 L. Ed. 805 . The other class is where a suit is brought against defendants, who, claiming to act as officers of the state, and under the color of an unconstitutional statute, commit acts of wrong and injury to the rights of property of the plaintiff acquired under a contract with the state. Such suit, whether brought to recover money or property in the hands of such defendants unlawfully taken by them in behalf of the state, or for compensation in damages, or, in a proper case, where the remedy at law is inadequate, for an injunction to prevent such wrong and injury, or for a mandamus, in a like case, to enforce upon the defendant the perform anee of a plain, legal duty, purely ministerial, is not, within the meaning of the eleventh amendment, an action against ihe state. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738 , 6 L. Ed. 204 ; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203 , 21 L. ”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Some of the expressions in the opinion in that case were criticised in the subsequent case of United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196 , 244, 1 Sup. Ct. 240 , 27 L. Ed. 171 , and.also in Re Ayres, 123 U. S. 443 , 487, 488, 8 Sup. Ct. 164 , 31 L. Ed. 216 , where the objectionable expressions were examined and held to have been mere dicta. It has not been overruled, however, but, on the contrary, it has been cited with approval and relied upon as authority in a number of subsequent cases; and the underlying principles of it are regarded as sound.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he immunity of a State from suit is absolute and unqualified”
5 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.