387 F. Supp. 1212 - Bowen v. Hackett’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2005 · most notably Fuchilla v. Layman (1988), Durning v. CitiBank, N.A. (1991)
12 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Hans v. State of Louisiana · Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[L]ocal law and decisions defining the status and nature of the agency involved in its relation to the sovereign are factors to be considered, but only one of a number that are of significance. Among the other factors, no one of which is conclusive, perhaps the most important is whether, in the event plaintiff prevails, the payment of the judgment will have to be made out of the state treasury; significant here also is whether the agency has the funds or the power to satisfy the judgment. Other relevant factors are whether the agency is performing a governmental or proprietary function; whether it has been separately incorporated; the degree of autonomy over its operations; whether it has the power to sue and be sued and to enter into contracts; whether its property is immune from state taxation, and whether the sovereign has immunized itself from responsibility for the agency's operations. [ Urbano v. Board of Managers of N.J. State Prison, 415 F. 2d 247, 250-51 (3d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 948 , 90 S.Ct. 967 , 25 L.Ed. 2d 129 (1970) (quoting Krisel v. Duran, 258 F. Supp. 845, 849 (S.D.N.Y. 1966), aff'd per curiam, 386 F. 2d 179 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1042 , 88 S.Ct. 1635 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 303 (1968) (footnotes omitted)).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fact that the General Assembly may feel morally obligated to replenish the funds in time of emergency is of no consequence. Such a possible ancillary effect on the state's general treasury is simply too attenuated to bring the Eleventh Amendment into play.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ernst v. Rising · Ernst v. Rising“[t]he most important factor in determining whether a particular agency is the 'alter ego' of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes is 'whether payment of a judgment will have to be made out of the state treasury, i.e., whether the fund in question has both the independent power and resources to pay the judgment without further action by the state legislature or other governmental officer.'”
1 later decision 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.