Ellis v. Blum’s Empirical Analysis
643 F.2d 68 · 1981
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 31 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 241 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Jett v. Dallas Independent School District (1989), Heckler v. Ringer (1984)
93 federal appellate · 31 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Mathews v. Eldridge · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Goldberg v. Kelly · Califano v. Sanders
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 241 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On its face § 405(h)’s ban on actions “against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof” does not apply to a suit against state officials. However, a forceful argument can be made that the state officials administering the disability-benefits program are acting under color of federal law as mere agents of the Secretary, and as such are within the ambit of § 405(h). To hold otherwise arguably would invite applicants for Title II benefits to circumvent §§ 405(g) and (h) by bringing suit under § 1331 against the state officials instead of the Secretary, particularly now that the amount-in-controversy requirement of § 1331 has been eliminated as to all defendants.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter.”
6 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.