Price v. Akaka’s Empirical Analysis
928 F.2d 824 · 1990
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 13 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Pele Defense Fund v. Paty (1992), Okwa v. Harper (2000)
34 federal appellate · 13 district · 9 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Parratt v. Taylor · Kentucky v. Graham · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Michel v. United States
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(Doc. No. 135-1 at 10.) This argument confuses the capacity in which a defendant is sued with the capacity in which the defendant was acting when the alleged constitutional violation occurred. see Price v. Akaka , 928 F.2d 824 , 828 (9th Cir. 1990) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Clearly, under § 1983, a plaintiff may sue a state officer in his individual capacity for alleged wrongs committed by the officer in his official capacity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, § 5(f) provides for management and disposition of the funds in accordance with the five purposes set forth therein “in such manner as the constitution and laws of said State may provide.” In accordance with this directive, the State in establishing OHA, statutorily provided that the public trust funds appropriated to OHA could only be used for the benefit of native Hawaiians. Further, the Attorney General opinion issued in 1983 unequivocally advised OHA that the Hawaii legislature could not authorize the use of § 5(f) funds to better the conditions of Hawaiians. Accordingly, this court finds that the contours of the law in 1988 was “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he was doing violates that right.” Therefore, if § 5(f) funds were used to advance the single definition referendum, defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Price v. Akaka
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.