Rossborough Manufacturing Co. v. Trimble’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Douglas R. Huffman in Re Robin Lynn Huffman in Re Edward N. Tucholski in Re Debbie S. Tucholski in Re John J. Rice in Re Josephine E. Rice, Debtors. Patricia A. Kovacs, Trustee v. First Union Home Equity Bank, First Union Mortgage Corporation, in Re Douglas R. Huffman in Re: Robin Lynn Huffman, Debtors. Patricia A. Kovacs, Trustee v. First Union Home Equity Bank, in Re Edward N. Tucholski in Re: Debbie S. Tucholski, Debtors. John N. Graham, Trustee Patricia A. Kovacs, Trustee v. National Lending Center, Inc. First Union National Bank, as Indenture Trustee · In Re: Douglas R. Huffman in Re: Robin Lynn Huffman in Re: Edward N. Tucholski in Re: Debbie S. Tucholski in Re: John J. Rice in Re: Josephine E. Rice, Debtors. Patricia A. Kovacs, Trustee v. First Union Home Equity Bank, First Union Mortgage Corporation, in Re: Douglas R. Huffman in Re: Robin Lynn Huffman, Debtors. Patricia A. Kovacs, Trustee v. First Union Home Equity Bank, in Re: Edward N. Tucholski in Re: Debbie S. Tucholski, Debtors. John N. Graham, Trustee Patricia A. Kovacs, Trustee v. National Lending Center, Inc. First Union National Bank, as Indenture Trustee

2. “In the case at hand, the plaintiffs explicitly demand prospective injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment; implicitly, they seek reimbursement that the claim should be paid out of the Fund. While it may be argued that the explicit demand for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment is merely a cover for the implicit request for money, we conclude that the Ex Parte Young exception applies. The plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the Treasurer's and Administrator's administration of the Fund. Were we to find that the actions of those officials are unconstitutional, and to issue an injunction preventing the continued unconstitutional administration of the Fund, the plaintiffs would not need a judgment against the state awarding them money damages because the injunction would lead to the lawful administration of the Fund and reimbursement for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, we hold that the Treasurer and Administrator are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. S & M Brands, Inc. v. Cooper · 652 F. Supp. 2d 901 - Perez v. Wade

3. “must accept as true all of the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, construing those 'allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. For a dismissal to be proper, it must appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff would not be able ■ to recover under any set of facts that could be presented consistent with the allegations of the complaint.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 234 F. Supp. 2d 812 - Smith v. HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center of Memphis, Ltd.