Whitner v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 federal appellate · 26 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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If the State administrative remedy here in question were designed to provide a means of obtaining relief from, or compensation for, a deprivation of civil rights which had already occurred, Mrs. Whitner would not have been required to exhaust it before instituting this civil rights action. See McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 , 83 S.Ct. 1433 , 10 L.Ed.2d 622 , followed in Houghton v. Shafer, 392 U.S. 639 , 88 S.Ct. 2119 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1319 and Damico v. California, 389 U.S. 416 , 88 S.Ct. 526 , 19 L.Ed.2d 647 . “But the administrative remedy available to Mrs. Whitner was not designed to be remedial in this sense. Instead, it provided a means of forestalling a threatened future deprivation of civil rights. . . . Had she taken advantage of the opportunity afforded her to apply for a hearing before the ‘Senate Personnel’ Committee or the Board of Trustees, she might have persuaded College authorities not to discharge her. In that event she would have had nothing to complain about in either a state or federal court.” 410 F.2d at 28 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 380 F. Supp. 280 - Parker v. Letson · 362 F. Supp. 901 - O'BRIEN v. Galloway

2. ““Defendants also rely upon the Eleventh Amendment in urging that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the board of trustees, the president of the College or the Attorney General of the state. The argument here, in effect, is that this is in actuality a suit against the State of Washington and therefore the state’s immunity provides a protective umbrella for the board and the personal defendants as pro forma parties. “Under some circumstances, a suit may be held to be one against a state even if the state is not named as a defendant. See In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 , 8 S.Ct. 164 , 31 L.Ed. 216 . However, we do not regard plaintiff’s claim against the board of trustees, the president of the College, and the Attorney General as an effort on her part to give the federal court personal jurisdiction over the state. As we view it, plaintiff’s reference to the board of trustees is intended only as a means of making collective reference to the individual trustees, each of whom is named a defendant.” "Individuals, sued in their capacity as trustees of a state agency, are not protected by the Eleventh Amendment any more than the agency itself is protected by that Amendment. Moreover, the allegations and prayer of plaintiff’s complaint make it clear that this is not intended to be exclusively a suit against the State of Washington. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and unspecified equitable relief against the personal defendants as individuals as well as in their capacities as ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pavlak v. Duffy · 359 F. Supp. 825 - Adamian v. University of Nevada

3. “While there may. be no constitutional right to public employment as such, there is a constitutional right to be free from unreasonably discriminatory practices with respect to such employ ment. [Citing cases.] It is also established that, apart from discrimination, public employment may, under some circumstances, be so supervised and controlled as to raise the question of whether there has been an impairment of constitutional rights. [Citing case.] 9”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Penn v. Stumpf