Ram Ditta ex rel. Ram Ditta v. Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission’s Empirical Analysis
822 F.2d 456 · 1987
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Gray v. Laws (1995), Harter v. Vernon (1996)
27 federal appellate · 6 district · 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
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury · Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the most important consideration is whether the state treasury will be responsible for paying any judgment that might be awarded.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether any judgment against the entity as defendant will be paid by the State ... ; (2) the degree of autonomy exercised by the entity, including such circumstances as who appoints the entity’s directors or officers, who funds the entity, and whether the State retains a veto over the entity’s actions; (3) whether the entity is involved with state concerns as distinct from non-state concerns, including local concerns; and (4) how the entity is treated under state law, such as whether the entity’s relationship with the State is sufficiently close to make the entity an arm of the State.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]s a matter of federal law, a court may consider both the relevant state statutes, regulations, and constitutional provisions which characterize the entity, and the holdings of state courts on the question. A federal court may “give deference to the rationale used by a state court,” but the holding is not dispositive as a matter of federal law.”
3 later decisions 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.