Woods v. Durr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any person to sell any commodity or to offer any accommodations for rent. . . .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rivera Santiago v. R. Cobián Chinea & Co. · Rivera v. R. Cobian Chinea & Co.

2. ““825.6 — Removal of tenant — (a) Restriction on removal of tenant. So long as the tenant continues to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled, no tenant shall be removed from any housing accommodations by action to evict or to recover possession, by exclusion from possession, or otherwise, nor shall any person attempt such removal or exclusion from possession, nothwithstanding that such tenant has no lease or that his lease or other rental agreement has expired or otherwise terminated, and regardless of any contract, lease, agreement or. obligation here tofore or hereafter entered into which provides for surrender of p'os-session, or for entry of judgment upon the tenant’s confession for breach of the covenants thereof, or which otherwise provides contrary hereto, except on one or more of the grounds specified in this paragraph (a), or. unless the landlord has obtained a certificate in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section: Provided, however, That no provisions of this section shall be construed to authorize the removal of a tenant unless such removal is authorized under local law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Asociación Cooperativa del Falansterio v. Navarro

3. ““The legal position taken by the Regional Administrator seems to be that, under Section 4(d) of the Act, the Administrator is not required to permit withdrawal of the housing accommodations from the rental market, unless the landlord intends permanently and unconditionally to cease his rental operations. Section 4(d) cannot be read so narrowly. Just as the owner of a commodity can withhold it from sale for the time being, hoping that the ceiling price will later be raised, so a landlord may withhold his housing accommodations from ■the rental market because of dissatisfaction with the existing maximum rents. It is quite true that the rent control program would be jeopardized if landlords generally went on such a strike. But Congress, in affording this leeway to an occasional obstinate landlord who resents government interference with what would, in an unregulated market, be a ‘gold mine’, has evidently concluded, with good reason, that the eventuality of such a general strike is not to be anticipated, particularly where the rent regulation is ‘generally fair and equitable’.” (Italics ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rivera Santiago v. R. Cobián Chinea & Co.