Cole v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1713 · 12 U.S.C. § 1715Z · 12 U.S.C. § 1715Z · 42 U.S.C. § 1401 · 42 U.S.C. § 4601 (Uniform Relocation Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 4621 · 42 U.S.C. § 4622 · 42 U.S.C. § 4624
Relies on Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · United States v. Public Utilities Commission · Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank · National Petroleum Refiners Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission
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.
“H.R.Rep.No.1656, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in (1970) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 5850, 5853. This implies that one circumstance in which the notice clause applies is when an agency orders someone to vacate property before the agency acquires it. But the Report does not say that this is the only situation in which the notice clause applies. In fact, the conditional language of the quoted sentence implies just the opposite. The dissent also relies on a statement in an executive branch memorandum stating that the Senate version was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cole v. Harris“language in the Senate bill would indeed cover some situations not covered by the notice definition, i. e., where the government has not acquired property and has not sent notice but there is a reasonable expectation of acquisition. But it does not necessarily follow that Congress, as opposed to the executive, intended the notice definition to be narrower than the Senate definition in all respects. We are equally unpersuaded by the dissent's citation to other sections of the Relocation Act referring to persons displaced because of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cole v. Harris“of increasing its liability. After the second contractor abandoned work on the project and placed a lien on the property, the nonprofit sponsor was thrown into default. At this point, in April of 1973 HUD was informed that the mortgagee had elected to foreclose, as it was permitted to do by HUD regulations. The sponsor then sought a second increase from HUD in the amount of the insured mortgage, which was presumably the mortgagee's condition for allowing the sponsor to complete the work. By HUD's account, however,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Cole v. Harris
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.