Suever v. Connell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Controller shall add interest at the rate of 5 percent or the bond equivalent rate of 13-week United States Treasury bills, whichever is lower, to the amount of any claim paid the owner under this section for the period the property was on deposit in the Unclaimed Property Fund. No interest shall be payable for any period prior to January 1, 1977. Any interest required to be paid by the state pursuant to this section shall be computed as simple interest, not compound interest. For purposes of this section, the bond equivalent rate of 13-week United States Treasury bills shall be defined in accordance with the following criteria: (1) The bond equivalent rate of 13-week United States Treasury bills established at the first auction held during the month of January shall apply for the following July 1 to December 31, inclusive. (2) The bond equivalent rate of 13-week United States Treasury bills established at the first auction held during the month of July shall apply for the following January 1 to June 30, inclusive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Turnacliff v. Westly

2. “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

3. “Title 10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure deals with unclaimed property located in California. Cal.Civ.Proc. Code § 1300, et seq. “It is the purpose of this title to provide for the receipt, custody, investment, management, disposal, escheat and permanent escheat of various classes of unclaimed property....” Id. § 1305.... “‘Escheat’ ... means the vesting in the state of title to property the whereabouts of whose owner is unknown or whose owner is unknown, ..: subject to the right of claimants to appear and claim the escheated property....” Id. § 1300(c)....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Turnacliff v. Westly