Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. v. Architectural Stone Co.’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.2d 22 · 1980
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (1989), Goodwin v. Elkins & Co. (1984)
31 federal appellate · 3 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Anderson
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Of course, the eleventh amendment is inapplicable where a state is a plaintiff....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court should consider whether the agency has been granted the right to hold and use property, whether it has the express authority to sue and be sued in its corporate name, the extent of its independent management authority, and ... the treatment of the agency by the state courts.... When examining the extent of the agency’s independent management authority, the court should look to whether the agency has the power to make its own hiring decisions, ... to enter into its own contracts and ... to engage its own counsel_ Other relevant factors might include: (1) whether the state is responsible for the agency’s debt; (2) whether the agency is primarily concerned with local, as opposed to statewide problems; and (3) the degree of general financial autonomy of the agency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Morgan“The court should consider whether the agency has been granted the right to hold and use property, whether it has the express authority to sue and be sued in its corporate name, the extent of its independent management authority, and ‘a factor that subsumes all others,’ the treatment of the agency by the state courts ... Other relevant factors might include: (1) whether the state is responsible for the agency’s debt; (2) whether the agency is primarily concerned with local, as opposed to statewide problems, and (3) the degree of general financial autonomy of the agency.”
1 later decision 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.