Barnes v. Zaccari’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Property interests subject to procedural due process protection are not limited by a few rigid, technical forms. Rather, property denotes a broad range of interests that are secured by existing rules or understandings.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601 , 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2699 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). An individual can have a protected property interest in a government benefit when he has “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). The claim of entitlement must come from an independent source. Id. (“Property interests ... are not created by the Constitution ... [but] by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source.... ”); Sindermann, 408 U.S. at 602 n. 7, 92 S.Ct. at 2700 n. 7. The independent source can be a statute, see Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 572-73 , 95 S.Ct. 729, 735 , 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); a regulation, see Glenn v. Newman, 614 F.2d 467, 471-72 (5th Cir.1980), overruled on other grounds, Monroe Cnty., Fla. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 690 F.2d 1359 (11th Cir.1982); an express or implied contract, see Sindermann, 408 U.S. at 601-02 , 92 S.Ct. at 2699-2700 ; or a mutually explicit understanding. Id. at 602-03 , 92 S.Ct. at 2700. “The hallmark of property ... is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 45”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 984 F. Supp. 2d 1209 - KTK Mining of Virginia, LLC v. City of Selma

2. “The Georgia constitution waives the state’s sovereign immunity for actions ex contractu. Ga. Const, art. I, § 2, ¶ IX(c). Similarly, the Georgia Code also waives the state’s sovereign immunity for breach of contract claims. Ga. Code .., § 50-21-l(a). But neither provision expressly consents to suits in federal court.... In fact, Georgia expressly retained its Eleventh Amendment immunity from such claims. Following the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Georgia constitution, a separate subsection provides that: “No waiver of sovereign immunity under this Paragraph shall be construed as a waiver of any immunity provided to the state or its departments, agencies, officers, or employees by the United States Constitution.” Ga. Const, art. I, § 2, ¶ IX(f). Eleventh Amendment immunity is an immunity provided by the United States Constitution. Additionally, the waiver in the Georgia Code states that “venue with respect to any [breach of contract] action shall be proper in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.” Ga. Code ... § 50-21-l(b).... [A] state can consent to suit in its own cqurts without consenting to suit in federal court. And that is exactly what Georgia did when it enacted § 50-21-1.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ryan Patrick Nicholl v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

3. “Evidence that a state has waived sovereign immunity in its own courts is not by itself sufficient to establish waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cassady v. Hall