Taylor v. Westly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because the plaintiffs seek genuinely prospective relief, and because the funds they seek are held by the state as custodian in trust for them rather than as the state’s own funds, much as a municipality holds a car towed from an expired parking meter, the complaint should not have been dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment for lack of jurisdiction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Suever v. Connell · 515 F. Supp. 2d 690 - Arnett Ex Rel. Estate of Arnett v. Strayhorn

2. “[m]oney that the state holds for the benefit of private individuals is not the state's money, any more than towed cars are the state's cars.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fowler v. Guerin · Fowler v. Guerin

3. “The district court was correct in concluding that, to the extent the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Mr. Taylor’s and Ms. Pepple-Gonsalves’s shares of stock were unconstitutionally taken from them, and an injunction that the state pay them money to compensate them, the claims would not fall within the Ex parte Young prospective relief exception to the Eleventh Amendment. While some may describe “this retroactive award of monetary relief as a form of ‘equitable restitution,’ ” such claims are “in practical effect indistinguishable in many aspects from an award of damages against the State.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Suever v. Connell