Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.2d 559 · 1975
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2012 · most notably Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976), Gagne v. Maher (1979)
34 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 45 U.S.C. § 51 · 45 U.S.C. § 56
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Johnson v. Zerbst · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Monroe v. Pape
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““a court must look to numerous factors, no one of which is conclusive . The most important, of course, is whether, in the event plaintiff prevails, judgment will have to be paid out of the state treasury . . . Also to be considered is whether the entity sued is performing a governmental or proprietary function, whether it has been separately incorporated, whether it has the power to sue and be sued and enter into contracts, the degree of autonomy over its operations, and whether the state has immunized itself from responsibility for the agency’s operations.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] judgment against the fund would thus automatically increase the obligations of the general state treasury and amount to a judgment against the state.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ernst v. Roberts · Ernst v. Rising“(T)he question is to be determined not by the mere names of the titular parties but by the essential nature and effect of the proceeding, as it appears from the entire record.”
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.