Toney v. Burris’s Empirical Analysis
829 F.2d 622 · 1987
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Rakovich v. Wade (1988), Vukadinovich v. Bartels (1988)
14 federal appellate ·
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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · Bishop v. Wood
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he waiver rule does not apply to the law on which a decision is based.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a) The Comptroller will not process a claim under Section 10.05 of the Act until he has received notification from the State agency that the debt has been established through notice and opportunity to be heard. b) For purposes of Section 10.05 of the Act and this Part promulgated pursuant thereto, “notification” of an account or claim eligible to be offset shall be deemed to occur when the State agency in favor of which the account or claim has arisen has submitted to the Comptroller, on a Form C-33, a written statement thereof, which statement must contain the following information: 1) the name, address and Social Security number or Federal Employer’s Identification Number of the person against whom the claim exists; 2) the amount of the claim then due and payable to the state; 3) the reason why there is an amount due to the State (i.e., income tax liability, overpayment, etc.); 4) the time period to which the claim is attributable; 5) the fund to which the debt is owed; 6) a description of the type of notification given to the person against whom the claim exists and the type of opportunity to be heard afforded such person; 7) a statement as to the outcome of any hearing or other proceedings held to establish the debt, or a statement that no hearing was requested; 8) the date of final determination of the debt; and 9) any other information which is needed to describe the claim eligible to be offset. (Emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Toney v. Burris“[w]hen there is ‘no ongoing violation of federal law’ {Green, supra, 106 S.Ct. at 425 ), a suit against a state officer — a suit the decision of which will as a practical matter bind the state — should be treated for what it is: a suit against the state. The Supreme Court accordingly held in Green that when there is no ongoing or impending violation of federal law, a federal court may not issue declaratory or ‘notice’ relief, even though that relief would be ‘prospective’ and would not require payments from the state treasury.”
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.