Bell v. Hood’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1994 · most notably Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), Carlson v. Green (1980)
26 federal appellate · 13 district ·
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. § 41
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Bell v. Hood · Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · William Marbury v. James Madison
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]laintiffs are unable to point to any constitutional provision or federal statute giving one who has suffered an unreasonable search and seizure or false imprisonment by federal officers any federal right or cause of action to recover damages from those officers as individuals.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Before deciding that there is no jurisdiction, the district court must look to the way the complaint is drawn to see if it is drawn so as to claim a right to recover under the Constitution and laws of the United States. * * * Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. If the court does later exercise its jurisdiction to determine that the allegations in the complaint do not state a ground for relief, then dismissal of the case would be on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction. ****** “The issue of. law is whether federal courts can grant money recovery for damages said to have been suffered as a result of federal officers violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. That question has never been specifically decided by this Court.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the party who brings a suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon and * * * does determine whether he will bring a ‘suit arising under’ the * * * [Constitution or laws] of the United States by his declaration or bill.” 2”
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.