750 F. Supp. 2d 892 - Stack v. Karnes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “the Ohio cases holding that a county cannot be .sued háve reasoned that “[c]ounties are local subdivisions of a State, created by the sovereign power of the State, of its own sovereign will,” as opposed to “municipal corporations,” which are not “superimposed by a sovereign and paramount authority.” The essential logic' of these,venerable cases is that the State of Ohio decided, on its own sovereign initiative, to divide its territory into county units, while there was no analogous central planning regarding the creation of Ohio cities and other municipal entities ... It is thus apparent that, even under Ohio law, the question of a governmental entity’s sua-bility is not conceptually distinct’ from the question of the entity’s sovereign immunity as an arm of the state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 149 F. Supp. 3d 827 - Plate v. Johnson

2. “The fact that' Ohio counties, absent application of Section 301.22, are not “bodies politic and corporate” for purposes of Ohio law is not the appropriate inquiry. Rather, the meaning of “person” for purposes of § 1983 focuses on the intent of .Congress, not that of the individual states. The congressional intent.shows that- the meaning of “person” for purposes of § 1983 includes “bodies politic and corporate,” which included municipalities, counties, and other local governments at the time of drafting the Civil Rights Act,””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 149 F. Supp. 3d 827 - Plate v. Johnson