Smith v. Grady’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2617 (§ 107 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 630 (§ 11 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Ex Parte: Edward T Young
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.
“the Ohio cases holding that a county cannot be .sued háve reasoned that “[c]ounties are local subdivisions of a State, created by the sovereign power of the State, of its own sovereign will,” as opposed to “municipal corporations,” which are not “superimposed by a sovereign and paramount authority.” The essential logic' of these,venerable cases is that the State of Ohio decided, on its own sovereign initiative, to divide its territory into county units, while there was no analogous central planning regarding the creation of Ohio cities and other municipal entities ... It is thus apparent that, even under Ohio law, the question of a governmental entity’s sua-bility is not conceptually distinct’ from the question of the entity’s sovereign immunity as an arm of the state.”
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.