Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Given the nature of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, we reject a “plain words” interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment.... Rather than look to the Amendment’s literal terms, we will more generally examine Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence to determine precisely what qualifies as a suit against the state. “ ‘What is a suit? We understand it to be the prosecution, or pursuit, of some claim, demand, or request. In law language, it is the prosecution of some demand in a Court of Justice.’ ” Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U.S. 18, 26 , 54 S.Ct. 18, 21 , 78 L.Ed. 145 (1933) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 , 6 Wheat. 264, 407 , 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)). A later articulation of the Eleventh Amendment’s reach characterizes a suit against the state more concretely. A suit is against the state if “ ‘the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration,’ or if the effect of the judgment would be ‘to restrain the Government from acting, or to compel it to act.’ ” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Hald-erman, 465 U.S. 89 , 101 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 900 , 908-09 n. 11, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (quoting Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620 , 83 S.Ct. 999, 1006 , 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963)).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re National Cattle Congress · 255 F. Supp. 2d 971 - Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Department

2. “Almost since its enactment, courts have struggled with the boundaries created by this Amendment. These endeavors have resulted in the creation of many legal fictions which control the Eleventh Amendment’s interpretation. For example, although the Amendment’s terms bar only suits against states by nonresidents, an early case established that the Eleventh Amendment also prohibits suits against a state by that state’s residents. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15-16 , 10 S.Ct. 504, 507-08 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). The Amendment’s terms address only federal suits in law and equity, yet it has been construed to also bar certain admiralty suits. Florida Dep’t of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 670 , 683 n. 17, 102 S.Ct. 3304 , 3313-14 n. 17, 73 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1982). Other cases have interpreted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit suits against a state by both foreign nations and Indian tribes. Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 330 , 54 S.Ct. 745, 751 , 78 L.Ed. 1282 (1934); Standing Rock Sioux Indian Tribe v. Dorgan, 505 F.2d 1135, 1141 (8th Cir.1974).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 255 F. Supp. 2d 971 - Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Department · 126 F. Supp. 2d 1180 - Sophapmysay v. City of Sergeant Bluff

3. “The Eleventh Amendment is the constant undercurrent for all state interactions in federal courts. See, e.g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct [ and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. ], 506 U.S. [139] at 144-46, 113 S.Ct. [684] at 688 [ 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) ] (reaffirming that Eleventh Amendment provides immunity from suit, not merely immunity from liability). It may be circumvented by waiver, abrogation, or a suit against state officials, but federal courts cannot simply deem a state's Eleventh Amendment defense inapplicable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 354 F. Supp. 3d 759 - Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor Coll. of Med.