Blake v. Kline’s Empirical Analysis
612 F.2d 718 · 1979
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 29 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic (1984), Fuchilla v. Layman (1988)
53 federal appellate · 29 district · 5 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Edelman v. Jordan · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[L]ocal law and decisions defining the status and nature of the agency involved in its relation to the sovereign are factors to be considered, but only one of a number that are of significance. Among the other factors, no one of which is conclusive, perhaps the most important is whether, in the event plaintiff prevails, the payment of the judgment will have to be made out of the state treasury; significant here also is whether the agency has the funds or the power to satisfy the judgment. Other relevant factors are whether the agency is performing a governmental or proprietary function; whether it has been separately incorporated; the degree of autonomy over its operations; whether it has the power to sue and be sued and to enter into contracts; whether its property is immune from state taxation, and whether the sovereign has immunized itself from responsibility for the agency’s operations.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have previously held that the nature of a suit as one against the state is to be determined by the essential nature and effect of the proceeding. And when the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the present proceeding ... is a suit against the state.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fuchilla v. Layman · ESTATE OF“... Although we recognize that the exact percentage of the state contribution is not determinative of eleventh amendment immunity, the nature and size of those funds may be probative. For eleventh amendment purposes, the nature of the state’s obligation to contribute may be more important than the size of the contribution. ... a court should consider whether the state, in making the contribution, is acting in the role of a sovereign or is contributing in some other capacity. Blake, supra at 723, 724 .”
3 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.