Sessions v. Rusk State Hospital’s Empirical Analysis
648 F.2d 1066 · 1981
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Ruiz v. Estelle (1982), Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (1982)
65 federal appellate · 8 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 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Edelman v. Jordan
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is an arm of the state partaking of the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity turns on its function and characteristics as determined by state law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 67 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 844, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,802 Kara Cross Debra York, Martha O'Quinn Melissa Weltin Mary Stalnacher Secunda Davis Carolyn Thacker, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees v. State of Alabama, State Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation J. Michael Horsley, Individually and as Associate Commissioner for the State Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation R. Emmett Poundstone, Iii, Individually and as Associate Commissioner for the State Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation Larry Stricklin, Individually and as Facility Director of the Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility · Fincher v. Florida Dept. of Labor & Employment Security-Unemployment Appeals Commission“In Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 , 98 S.Ct. 3057 , 56 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that, absent an express waiver by the state of its eleventh amendment immunity, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Employees v. Department of Public Health and Welfare, 411 U.S. 279 , 93 S.Ct. 1614 , 36 L.Ed.2d 251 (1973); Parden v. Terminal Ry., 377 U.S. 184 , 84 S.Ct. 1207 , 12 L.Ed.2d 233 (1974), neither the state nor its agencies may be sued for injunctive relief in federal court, although injunctive or prospective relief may be sought against state officials without invoking the eleventh amendment bar. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). An award by a federal court of retrospective relief, i.e., damages, payable from the state treasury, is prohibited by the eleventh amendment even though the suit names a state official as the defendant. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 99 S.Ct. 1139 , 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). Alabama v. Pugh stresses the continuing significance of the distinction between suits against the state or an arm of the state and those against state officials even in actions seeking prospective or injunctive relief. See Spicer v. Hilton, 618 F.2d 232, 237 (3d Cir. 1980).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A complaint that is defective because it does not allege a claim within the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court may be amended to state a different claim over which the federal court has jurisdiction. If the claim asserted in the amendment arises out of the conduct or occurrence set forth in the original complaint, the amendment is given retroactive effect to the date the original complaint was filed.”
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.