Smith v. Holiday Inns of America, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
336 F.2d 630 · 1964
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1982 · most notably Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (1982), United States v. Price (1966)
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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1701 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Shelley v. Kraemer · Cooper v. Aaron · Civil Rights Cases
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The single pervasive fact which defendants seek to ignore but which this court cannot is that this motel is part and parcel of a large, significant, and continuing public enterprise. . This motel was conceived by the planners of this project, its creation was made possible by the execution of the project, and its existence is now governed to a great degree by the project’s predetermined design and controls.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“were inextricably intermingled in the financing of the Capitol Hill Redevelopment Project. It is also obvious that that project was carried out by public agencies created by and operating under the laws of the United States and the State of Tennessee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The single pervasive fact which defendants seek to ignore but which this court cannot is that this motel is part and parcel of a large, significant, and continuing public enterprisethe Capitol Hill Redevelopment Project.”
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.