Esparza v. Valdez’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.2d 788 · 1988
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2011 · most notably Mascheroni v. Board of Regents of the University of California (1994), Atlantic Healthcare Benefits Trust v. Googins (1993)
13 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 3304 (Federal Unemployment Tax Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 503 (§ 303 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (§ 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (§ 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Papasan v. Allain · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Honig v. Doe
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ejven if we could find little or no fiscal impact on the state from plaintiffs’ suits, the financial impact on the state does not appear to be the predominant factor.... [W]hen money damages are awarded against the state, the state as an entity is being subject to suit. [[Image here]] Thus, no matter what fund a judgment for past damages comes from, it is still a damage award against the state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“with cases that have found the segregation of funds dispositive as to the issue of whether a claim for accrued benefits is barred by the eleventh amendment. The court stated that it did not believe that a state's sovereign immunity”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Paschal v. Jackson“can be abrogated through reliance on notions of whether such relief would be paid out of a general or special revenue fund.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Paschal v. Jackson
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.