Daubert v. Percy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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.

1. “The funds which defendants oppose paying are not compensation for loss pri- or to the entry of the 1973 injunction. They are funds which were required to be paid by that prospective injunction but were withheld because the injunction was erroneously modified in October 1980. Absent the erroneous modification and consistently with the Eleventh Amendment, defendants would have provided the benefits until the April 1, 1981, Wisconsin legislative change. The 1973 injunction was admittedly permissible under the Eleventh Amendment. That Amendment does not bar the [district court’s] September 1982 order at issue because it was only effectuating the pri- or injunction during the brief period before the Wisconsin legislature acted.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wisconsin Hospital Ass'n v. Reivitz · 634 F. Supp. 1313 - Hillhaven Corp. v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services

2. “Daubert concerned a situation where the district court issued a permanent injunction in 1973 against the Wisconsin Secretary of DHSS ordering him and his sue cessors in office to make certain welfare payments. Seven years later, in 1980, the district court amended the injunction so that the Secretary could refuse to make some of the payments required by the 1973 judgment. Plaintiffs then appealed that decision. However, while the appeal was pending, approximately five months after the district court amended the 1973 injunction the Wisconsin legislature amended the statute that underlay the original 1973 judgment, rendering that judgment unsound. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s amendment of the 1973 injunction, but because of the change in the statute the original injunction was not reinstated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 634 F. Supp. 1313 - Hillhaven Corp. v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services

3. ““Not every award of retroactive monetary relief payable from a state treasury violates the Eleventh Amendment. Had the Secretary chosen to defy the 1973 injunction instead of moving for relief from it, the district court could have held him in contempt and ordered him to pay from the state treasury benefits that had already accrued. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 [ 98 S.Ct. 2565 , 57 L.Ed.2d 522 ] [1978] ... Ordering a state to pay benefits that it had been required to pay ... is no more disruptive of its budget process than is asking it to pay a civil contempt fine____””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 633 F. Supp. 1529 - Gilliard v. Kirk