Kerns v. Dukes’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2013
2 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1341 · 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1365 · 33 U.S.C. § 1381 · 33 U.S.C. § 1382 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Martinez v. California · Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc. · National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, that they were arbitrarily denied the right to vote on a new district. Second, they were arbitrarily denied an environmental process which we believe to be fixed and vested. And third, that the sewer district that was built is not legitimately or rationally related to an existing health menace for the need for that sewer. And that's the basis of the lawsuit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kerns v. Dukes · No. 96-7751“[T]he state courts of Delaware may hear the Property Owners’ § 1983 claims.... While concurrent jurisdiction over § 1983 claims may lie in either the Superior Court or the Court of Chancery, the selection of the forum is dictated by the relief sought. The Property Owners seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief and money damages on their § 1983 claims. They also seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . The Court of Chancery has exclusive jurisdiction where injunctive relief is sought. The Court of Chancery may award declaratory relief, where there is otherwise a basis for equitable jurisdiction. The requests for an award of money dam ages and for attorneys’ fees do not prevent the Court of Chancery from exercising jurisdiction over the § 1988 claims. The Court of Chancery, in its discretion, may elect to exercise jurisdiction over legal claims concurrent to equitable claims properly before it. Once the Court of Chancery accepts jurisdiction over the entire controversy, the court is empowered to resolve the entire controversy, even if doing so requires an award of a purely legal remedy, such as money damages. Finally, sovereign immunity does not bar an action brought pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction over the Property Owners’ § 1983 claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kerns v. Dukes“between the decision of the Court of Chancery in Delaware Bankers Association v. Division of Revenue of the Department of Finance, Del.Ch., 298 A.2d 352 (1972), and the Superior Court's holding in Tatten Partners v. New Castle County Board of Assessment Review, Del.Super., 642 A.2d 1251 (1993). II. 106 This Court must examine a certified question of law in the context in which it arises. Rales v. Blasband, Del.Supr., 634 A.2d 927, 931 (1993).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. No. 96-7751
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.