Antinerella v. Rioux’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 district · 273 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 281 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp. (1997), Parsons v. United Technologies Corp. (1997)
4 district · 273 state decisions
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Gurliacci v. Mayer · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub · Application of Fre Le Poole Griffiths for Admission to the Bar · Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc. · Morris v. Hartford Courant 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 281 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a [trial] court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss, it must consider the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable light.”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage“damage or injury, not wanton, reckless or malicious, caused in the discharge of his duties or within the scope of his employment.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“In those cases in which it is alleged that the defendant officer is proceeding . . . in excess of his statutory authority, the interest in the protection of the plaintiff's right to be free from the consequences of such action outweighs the interest served by the sovereign immunity doctrine. . . . In such instances, the need to protect the government simply does not arise and the government cannot justifiably claim interference with its functions. . . . Where [however] no substantial claim is made that the defendant officer is acting pursuant to an unconstitutional enactment or in excess of his statutory authority, the purpose of the sovereign immunity doctrine requires dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.