Green Street Ass'n v. Daley’s Empirical Analysis
373 F.2d 1 · 1967
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2003 · most notably Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979), Core v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency (1968)
35 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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 Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · Rindge Co v. Los Angeles County Rindge Co · Georgia v. City of Chattanooga · Progress Development Corporation, a Corporation and Modern Community Developers, Inc., a Corporation v. James C. Mitchell
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The complaint alleges, in various terms, that the relocation facilities proposed in the Urban Renewal Plan ‘recognize’ or ‘acknowledge’ the segregated residential pattern existing in Chicago. It does not, and realistically cannot, allege that the relocation machinery established by the Plan forces or compels displacees from the Project to relocate in segregated areas of the city. The existing ‘segregated’ residential pattern is accidental to the Plan. The City admittedly could not require relocation in any particular area; it may only determine what housing is available in fact and offer whatever assistance it can in furnishing this information to displacees. The local defendants may not be en joined from proceeding with the Plan simply because the Plan fails to include what the local defendants would be powerless to enforce — ‘integrated’ relocation. (Emphasis added).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It must be assumed that the state court will protect the plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights. ‘The state courts are as firmly bound by the Con stitution of the United States as is this [federal] Court and [the proper] forum for the enforcement of any constitutional rights that may have been violated is in the . . . state courts with the right of ultimate determination by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ” 14”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any department or agency action taken pursuant to section 2000d-1 of this title shall be subject to such judicial review as may otherwise be provided by law for similar action taken by such department or agency on other grounds. In the case of action, not otherwise subject to judicial review, terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance upon a finding of failure to comply with any requirement imposed pursuant to section 2000d-1 of this title, any person aggrieved (including any State or political subdivision thereof and any agency of either) may obtain judicial review of such action in accordance with section 1009 of Title 5 [now 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706], and such action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of that section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Cohen
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.