Zapata v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
437 F.2d 1024 · 1971
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Walker v. Washington (1980), Springdale Convalescent Center v. Mathews (1977)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2992 · 42 U.S.C. § 2993
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] line of cases, usually spoken of as an exception to this rule, hold[s] that a suit against an official is not one against the United States if it is alleged either that the official acted beyond the statutory limitations of his power or, even though within the scope of his authority, the powers themselves are constitutionally void. See Dugan v. Rank, supra; Malone v. Bowdoin, 1962, 369 U.S. 643 , 82 S.Ct. 980 , 8 L.Ed.2d 168 ; Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp., 1949, 337 U.S. 682 , 69 S.Ct. 1457 , 93 L.Ed. 1628 , 1631. Suit is justified on the theory that the official’s conduct cannot be attributed to the sovereign because the official had no power in fact to do the challenged act. Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp., supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.”
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.