Greenbrier Woodlake Village Partnership v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
193 F.3d 1348 · 1999
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Boyle v. United States (2000), Greenlee County Arizona v. United States (2007)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Relies on Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council · Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. · Agins v. City of Tiburon
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Plaintiffs] ... appeal the trial court’s order denying the certification of a class ....This issue is moot in light of our holdings that the government is not liable to the [plaintiffs] ....”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for class certification is denied. . The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ conclusion that plaintiff is”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the limited circumstance in which the administrative entity has no discretion regarding the regulation's applicability and its only option is enforcement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to allowing prepayment. Id. at 1359 . However, we noted, according to the facts then-of-record, that HUD had approved prepayment proposals on three of the eight occasions on which such approval was sought. Id. at 1358 . Because the facts showed that HUD did, indeed, have limited discretion to approve prepayment requests, we held that the 249 owners could not, as a group, forego the requirement to obtain a final decision from HUD prior to bringing suit for a taking. Id. at 1360 . We nonetheless recognized that a claim could be ripe absent a prior, final decision from HUD”
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.