Hall v. Medical College of Ohio’s Empirical Analysis
742 F.2d 299 · 1984
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Fuchilla v. Layman (1988), Reuber v. United States (1984)
49 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Morrissey v. Brewer · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the agency is performing a governmental or proprietary function; whether it has been separately incorporated; . . . whether it has the power to sue and be sued and to enter into contracts; whether its property is immune from state taxation, and whether the sovereign has immunized itself from responsibility for the agency's operations”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“decisions and laws shedding light on the relationship of the [entity] to the state government are important, and potentially controlling”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“We have previously held that the nature of a suit as one against the state is to be determined by the essential nature and effect of the proceeding. And when the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the present proceeding ... is a suit against the state.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.