Tindal v. Wesley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

103 federal appellate · 33 district · 53 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 348 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘•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. ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Starr v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. · Board Trustees Town of Casa v. Pooler, U.S. Dist.

2. ““So that the question is directly presented, whether an action brought against individuals to recover the possession of land of which they have actual possession and control, is to be deemed an action against the state within the meaning of the Constitution, simply because those individuals claim to be in rightful possession as officers or agents of the state, and assert title and right of’ possession in the state. Can the court, in such an action, decline to • inquire whether the plaintiff is, in law, entitled to possession, and whether the individual defendants have any right, in law, to withhold possession? And if the court finds, upon due inquiry, that the plaintiff is entitled to possession, and that the assertion by the defendants of right of possession and title in the state is without legal foundation, may it not, as between the plaintiff and the defendants, adjudge that the plaintiff recover possession?””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Florida Department of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc. · Board Trustees Town of Casa v. Pooler, U.S. Dist.

3. “[I]t cannot be doubted that the question whether a particular suit is one against the State, within the meaning of the Constitution, must depend upon the same principles that determine whether a particular suit is one against the United States.''). 75 In Lee, the Court held there was federal jurisdiction over an ejectment suit brought by General Lee's son to oust federal officers from property seized by the United States for alleged nonpayment of taxes and held under an order of the Secretary of War. The defending officials claimed the”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Florida Department of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc. · Idaho v. Coeur Tribe of Idaho