City of Edmonds v. Washington State Building Code Council’s Empirical Analysis
18 F.3d 802 · 1994
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc. (1995), Smith & Lee Associates, Inc. v. City of Taylor (1996)
25 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 300X · 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (§ 801 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3607 (§ 807 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3613 (§ 813 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Richards v. United States · Moore v. City of East Cleveland · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · Alexander v. Choate
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he concept of “reasonable accommodation” has a long history in regulations and case law dealing with discrimination on the basis of handicap. A discriminatory rule, policy, practice or service is not defensible simply because that is the manner in which such rule or practice has traditionally been constituted. This section would require that changes be made to such traditional rules or practices if necessary to permit a person with handicaps an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress intended the FHAA to protect the right of handicapped persons to live in the residence of their choice in the community.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of - (A) that buyer or renter (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; [or] (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter; or (2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling ... because of a handicap of [any person listed in (A) through (C) above].”
2 later decisions 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.