Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 190 F.3d 310 - Christopher Village Limited Partnership

Christopher Village Limited Partnership’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Powell v. McCormack · Heckler v. Chaney · Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group · Hahn v. Gottlieb

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

  1. “Village certainly had the duty to maintain Mockingbird "so as to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing.... Village's duty, however, was not absolute. Nothing in the National Housing Act, HUD's regulations, the Regulatory Agreement, or the HAP requires Village, as a low income property owner, to absorb or subsidize operating and maintenance deficiencies. Instead the programs are designed to ensure that HUD establishes rental rates so that property owners receive enough revenue to cover all of the property’s expenses including maintenance, repairs, debt service, taxes, and a six percent return on investment.” See 12 U.S.C.A. § 1747c. Thus, the HUD reimbursement scheme resembles cost-plus contracts or public utility regulation, in either of which situations the private party who performs the work is assured of recovering reasonably incurred costs as well as a reasonable return on investments.”
    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.