Cotton v. Mansour’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “The eleventh amendment states that “[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State.” The Supreme Court has long held that the amendment also applies to suits against a state by one of its own citizens. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 , 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355-56 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). The Supreme Court has also clearly determined that relief under the Ex Parte Young exception [ 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) ] to the eleventh amendment bar must be prospective in nature. Both prospective and retrospective relief implicate Eleventh Amendment concerns, but the availability of prospective relief of the type awarded in Ex Parte Young gives life to the Supremacy Clause. Remedies designed to end a continuing violation of federal law are necessary to vindicate the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of that law. See Pennhurst [State School & Hospital v. Halderman], supra, 465 U.S. [89] at 102 [ 104 S.Ct. 900, 909 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) ]. See also Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 [ 97 S.Ct. 2749 , 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977) ].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 556 F. Supp. 2d 689 - Gale v. General Motors · Sutton v. Evans

2. “Finally, we are not persuaded that the equities ultimately lie in favor of a retroactive award. Presumably, the State has a definable allocation of monies to be used in the payment of public aid benefits. An award of retroactive benefits that results in liability of the State for administrative expenses will reduce the availability of funds for the continuing obligations of public assistance programs .... The purpose of the food stamp program is to enable families to obtain a nutritionally adequate diet. As a practical matter, that goal may not be fulfilled retroactively. Therefore, an award of relief for past errors would be compensatory rather than remedial in nature. Policy considerations strongly suggest that the distribution of limited resources to those presently in need of food stamp assistance better serves the purposes of the Act than an award to persons whose circumstances may have been improved in the interim period.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 758 F. Supp. 423 - Baum v. Yeutter

3. “all Ohio residents of federally assisted rental housing who have been or are receiving or will receive utility reimbursement payments and whose food stamp allotments, at any time since January 27, 1987, have been, are, or will be reduced, terminated, or denied because their utility reimbursement payments have been, are, or will be counted as income for purposes of the Food Stamp Program.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 758 F. Supp. 423 - Baum v. Yeutter