Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
482 F.3d 1157 · 2007
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2010), San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States (2013)
7 federal appellate · 7 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
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Baker v. Carr · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Califano v. Sanders · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] Bivens action can be maintained against a defendant in his or her individual capacity only, and not in his or her official capacity.”). 4 . Because the state court judgment specifically awarded title to”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The plaintiff] seeks to enjoin various individual government officials, based on [Bivens ]. Bivens created a remedy for violations of constitutional rights committed by federal officials acting in their individual capacities. In a paradigmatic Bivens action, a plaintiff seeks to impose personal liability upon a federal official based on alleged constitutional infringements he or she committed against the plaintiff.... This is because a Bivens suit against a defendant in his or her official capacity would merely be another way of pleading an action against the United States, which would be barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity— Here, [the plaintiff] has sued various Federal officials in their official capacities. It seeks to enjoin official action ... [and] does not claim damages based on the past unconstitutional acts of Federal officials in their individual capacities. Therefore, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because the United States has not consented to its officials being sued in their official capacities.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit unless it has waived its immunity.”
2 later decisions 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.