Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 290 F.3d 178 - Antrican v. Odom

Antrican v. Odom’s Empirical Analysis

290 F.3d 178 · 2002

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably 30 Cal. 4th 798 - Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003), Koslow v. Pennsylvania (2002)

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

460200220102020decided

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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Harris v. McRae

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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[The Ex Parte Young exception] to Eleventh Amendment immunity is designed to preserve the constitutional structure established by the Supremacy Clause and rests on the notion, often referred to as a fiction, that a state officer who acts unconstitutionally is stripped of his official or representative character and thus subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “allows private citizens, in proper cases, to petition a federal court to enjoin State officials in their official capacities from engaging in future conduct that would violate the Constitution or a federal statute.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he focus on an injunction's impact on the State's treasury is misdirected. Rather, the proper focus must be directed at whether the injunctive relief sought is prospective or retroactive in nature.”
    2 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.