Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 F.3d 115 - Radecki v. Joura

Radecki v. Joura’s Empirical Analysis

114 F.3d 115 · 1997

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
4
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2018

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

80199720002010decided

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. § 3602 (§ 802 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman · School Board of Nassau County Florida v. H Arline · Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy

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

  1. “The [district] court set forth the following prima facie case which Radecki had the burden of proving: a) he was a member of a class protected under the FHA; b) defendants were aware of Radecki's membership in that class; c) Radecki was willing and qualified to continue renting his apartment; and d) defendants refused to permit Radecki to continue to rent the apartment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Radecki had informed defendants twice before August 16 that he was 'ill' and 'it was long term,' but had not mentioned the nature of his illness; and that Radecki asserted he or his attorney told defendants of his disability sometime after August 16.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “whether defendants discriminated against [plaintiffs] by refusing to accommodate [their disability.]”
    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.