Bishop v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
902 F.2d 809 · 1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Alabama v. Pugh · Florida Department of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc. · 607 F. Supp. 631 - Wojciechowski v. Harriman
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under its Tort Claims Act, the State of New Mexico has consented to suits against its entities and employees acting within the scope of their duty for enumerated unintentional torts.... But that consent is limited to actions commenced in the state district courts.... Accordingly, Bishop cannot pursue his claim against the New Mexico Department of Corrections and its employees acting within the scope of their employment in the federal district court, but rather is relegated to the state district court to seek relief consistent with the limited waiver of immunity under § 41-4-18.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he eleventh amendment generally bars lawsuits in federal court seeking damages against states as well as against state agencies, departments, and employees acting in their official capacity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Archibeque v. Wylie
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.