Ocasio v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis
374 F.2d 11 · 1967
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Davis v. Knud-Hansen Memorial Hospital (1980), 298 F. Supp. 1351 - MacK v. Lewis (1969)
10 federal appellate · 13 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 48 U.S.C. § 1541 (Revised Organic Act)
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Costello v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Basista v. Weir · Sires v. Cole · Lon Southerland, Doing Business as Southerland Tours v. St. Croix Taxicab Association and the Government of the Virgin Islands
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not extend to a police officer who is sued for damages under the Civil Rights Act [for] in such cases recovery runs against him in his private capacity and not against the Government.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 2(b) was intended to bar tort actions against the Government of the Virgin Islands without its consent. It therefore provides against evasion of its policy of sovereign immunity in tort through the device of a suit against an officer or employee of the Government in his official capacity. See generally, Block, Suits Against Government Officials and the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine, 59 Harv.L.Rev. 1060 (1946). So construed, the provision envelops government officers with immunity only where the suit is in reality against the Government itself, so that an adverse judgment would require a payment out of public funds, rather than a payment by an individual in his private capacity, [citation] The immunity provision of § 2(b) therefore does not extend to a police officer who is sued for damages under the Civil Rights Act. For it is well settled that in such cases recovery runs against the officer himself in his private capacity and not against the Government . . . (emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“against any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity”
1 later decision 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.