Scott v. E O'Grady’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “Although ... [the abovementioned] language [of the Eleventh Amendment] expressly encompasses only suits brought against a state by citizens of another state, the Eleventh Amendment has long been interpreted to also bar federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over actions against a state brought by her own citizens. Papasan v. Allian, 478 U.S. 265, 276 [ 106 S.Ct. 2932, 2939 , 92 L.Ed.2d 209 ] (1986) (citing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 [ 10 S.Ct. 504 , 33 L.Ed. 842 ] (1890)). Eleventh Amendment issues arise whenever a private citizen files a federal lawsuit against a state, a state agency, or a state official — although the effect of the amendment differs depending on the category of defendant. Kroll v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 934 F.2d 904, 907 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 377 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 329 ] (1991). All suits against a state or its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment unless the state consents to suit in federal court or Congress uses its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238 [ 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3145 , 87 L.Ed.2d 171 ] (1985); Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 [ 104 S.Ct. 900, 907 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 ] (1984); Kroll, 934 F.2d at 907 . Suits against state officials, however, are sometimes permissible. A suit against a state official in his personal capacity is not barred by the Eleven”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coffey v. Cox · Thomas v. Brown

2. “The Eleventh Amendment to our Constitution states: “The 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 any Foreign State.” U.S. Const, amend. XI. Although this language expressly encompasses only suits brought against a state by citizens of another state, the Eleventh Amendment has long been interpreted to also bar federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over actions against a state brought by her own citizens. Papasan v. Attain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 , 106 S.Ct. 2932, 2939 , 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (citing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 , 10 S.Ct. 504 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890)). Eleventh Amendment issues arise whenever a private citizen files a federal lawsuit against a state, a state agency, or a state official — although the effect of the amendment differs depending on the category of defendant. Kroll v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 934 F.2d 904, 907 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 941 , 112 S.Ct. 377 , 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Milwaukee County · Thomas v. Brown

3. “'ignore any facts set forth in the complaint that undermine the plaintiff's claim [nor do we] assign any weight to unsupported conclusions of law.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Motors Ltd v. Subaru of America Inc Motors Ltd a · City National Bank of Florida v. Checkers, Simon & Rosner