Smith v. Truman Reeves’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

166 federal appellate · 127 district · 75 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 631 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[s]uch a judgment would have the same effect as if it were rendered directly against the State for the amount specified in the complaint.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United Contracting Co. v. Duby · 950 So. 2d 1180 - ALABAMA DEM v. Town of Lowndesboro

2. ““The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that ‘the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state,’ is not here involved. By this amendment-a privilege is granted for the benefit of the state, which applies specifically to suits prosecuted against the state. It has been uniformly held under this amendment that a state cannot be made a defendant in a federal court against its consent, but that the privilege may be waived if the state sees fit voluntarily to submit itself to the jurisdiction.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Andrews · Utah Const. Co. v. State Highway Commission of Wyoming

3. “give its consent to be sued in its own courts by private persons or by corporations, in respect of any cause of action against it and at the same time exclude the jurisdiction of the Federal courts — subject always to the condition, arising out of the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, that the final judgment of the highest court of the state in any action brought against it with its consent may be reviewed or re-examined, as prescribed by the act of Congress, if it denies to the plaintiff any right, title, privilege, or immunity secured to him and specially claimed under the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business Regulation · Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon