O'Neill v. Early’s Empirical Analysis
208 F.2d 286 · 1953
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 1984 · most notably School Board of the City of Charlottesville v. Allen (1956), Bennett v. Gravelle (1971)
21 federal appellate · 7 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
Relies on Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · In Re State of New York et al Petition of Walsh et al · Great Northern Life Ins Co v. Read · Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This is not a suit against a municipal corporation or against officers of the state as individuals, but against an agency of the state, sued as such, and an officer of the state sued in his official capacity. Its purpose is to obtain a judgment which will establish a liability of the state and will be payable out of public funds controlled by defendants in their supervision of the state’s educational system. It is perfectly clear that such a suit is one against the state which falls within the inhibition of the Eleventh Amendment. * * *””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Thus examined, the decided cases have fallen into two principal classes, mentioned in Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1 , 10, 11 S.Ct. 608 [699], 35 L.Ed. 363 : ‘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 (citing eases). 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 and property of the plaintiff acquired under a contract with the state. Such suit * * * is not, within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, an action against the state.’ The first class, in just reason, is not confined to cases where the suit will operate so as to compel the state specifically to perform its contracts, but extends to such as will require it to make pecuniary satisfaction for any liability. Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 , 439, 20 S.Ct. 919 , 44 L.Ed. 1140 * * *"”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duckworth v. James
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.