Williams v. Eaton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 federal appellate · 21 district · 6 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““However, we feel that the basis for allowing equitable suits against unconstitutional action is that they merely enjoin such acts, and we believe the result is different where the relief sought would ‘expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration. Ex parte New York, 256 U.S. 490, 500, 502 , 41 S.Ct. 588, 590, 591 , 65 L.Ed. 1057 .’ Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 738 , 67 S.Ct. 1009, 1012 , 91 L.Ed. 1209 . When the action in essence is for recovery of money from the State the immunity is available even though individual officials are nominal defendants. See Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, supra, 323 U.S. [459] at 464, 65 S.Ct. 347 [ 89 L.Ed. 389 ]; Hamilton Manufacturing Co. v. Trustees of State Colleges in Colorado, supra [356 F.2d 599]; and Westberry v. Fisher, 309 F.Supp. 12, 18-20 (D.Me.); contra, Sostre v. Rockefeller, supra [ 312 F.Supp. 863 (D.C.)].” [See also, Wright v. Altus Production Credit Association, 468 F.2d 997 (CA 10, 1972).]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 357 F. Supp. 443 - Poindexter v. Woodson · Prebble v. Gordon Brodrick

2. ““Insofar as the claims for injunc-tive and declaratory relief are concerned, the principles are well established. ‘It is the settled doctrine of this court that a suit against individuals for the purpose of preventing them as officers of a state from enforcing an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff, is not a suit against the state within the meaning of that amendment.’ Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418 , 422, 169 U.S. 466 , 518, 42 L.Ed. 819 ; see also Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 155-156, 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 ; Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Corporation, 337 U.S. 682 , 690, 69 S.Ct. 1457 , 93 L.Ed. 1628 ; McCoy v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 332 F.2d 915 (5th Cir.); and School Board of City of Charlottesville, Va. v. Allen, 240 F.2d 59 , 62-63 (4th Cir.). And if the plaintiffs establish a violation of Federal constitutional rights and entitlement to relief under the Federal civil rights acts, the Wyoming Constitution may not immunize the defendants and override the Federal constitutional principles in view of the Supremacy Clause. Therefore, if a violation of Federal constitutional rights is established by plaintiffs, the immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and the Wyoming Constitution would not bar injunctive or declaratory relief against the defendants other than the State of Wyoming. McCoy v. Louisiana State Board of Education, supra, and Dorsey v. State Athletic Commission, 168 F.Supp. 149 (E.D.La.), aff’d 359 U.S. 533 , 79 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adams v. Walker

3. “[t]he Judicial power to the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. 10”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gressley v. Deutsch