Patterson v. Ramsey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 13 district · 5 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. state statutes and court decisions governing the entity 2. its source of revenue 3. its autonomy from the state government 4. whether it has the power to sue and be sued 5. whether it has the power to contract 6. whether the state would be responsible for a judgment against the entity”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. Frederick County Board of Education · 628 F. Supp. 247 - Weide v. Mass Transit Administration

2. ““The Court has separated the issues of jurisdiction and cause of action (as is reflected above). Failure to separate these issues has often resulted in conceptual confusion by courts and commentators. “Before discussing these issues, it is best to determine what is at stake in their resolution. The Supreme Court has determined that municipalities and their agencies cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary or injunctive relief, since they are not ‘persons’ within the contemplation of the statute. Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507 , 93 S.Ct. 2222 , 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). Thus, if these entities can be sued in federal court, they must be sued directly under the Fourteenth Amendment. “(a) — The first issue which must be addressed is the question of this Court’s jurisdiction (under section 1331) of suits filed directly under the Fourteenth Amendment. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides as follows: “(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. [Emphasis supplied.] A suit directly based on the Fourteenth Amendment would seem to be the paradigm of a case ‘arising under’ the Constitution. Furthermore, the ‘person’ requirement of section 1983 is absent from § 1331(a). The conclusion that jurisdiction exists is supp”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 423 F. Supp. 1045 - Raffety v. Prince George's County

3. “The Court construes the words "at pleasure" to mean that the Board may remove the . . . [employe] for any reason except an unconstitutional reason. The statute plainly omits any requirement that the removal be for good cause or any specific reason . This reading of the provision (mandated by the plain words) makes sense in light of the relationship between the Board and the . . . [employe] and in light of the highly discretionary nature of the . . . [employe's] job. The Board is composed of nine members . . . whose function is to broadly oversee the workings of the system and to set . . . policy in the system. The . . . [employe] has the highly discretionary task of implementing the Board's general directions. In such a relationship, the pleasure of the superior is quite often the standard by which the employee is hired and fired.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Opinion No. Oag 45-83, (1983)