Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 385 FSUPP 986 - Brown v. Lynn

Brown v. Lynn’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
3
states following
October 2001
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Roberts v. Cameron-Brown Co. (1977), Marcus Garvey Square, Inc. v. Winston Burnett Construction Co. of California, Inc. (1979)

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

2501974198019902000decided

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. § 1702 · 12 U.S.C. § 1709 · 12 U.S.C. § 1715Z · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1441 (Housing Act of 1949) · 5 U.S.C. § 701

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Goldberg v. Kelly · Perry v. Sindermann · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Fuentes v. Shevin

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

  1. “As reflected in the HUD guidelines, the program apparently contemplated the necessary flexibility to deal with the inevitable temporary crises such as illness, temporary unemployment, etc., which all involved in the program knew would occur. Extensions, recasting of mortgages, purchase of the mortgages by the FHA prior to foreclosure and their subsequent recasting, all were obviously necessary to carry out the Congressional purpose as the guidelines recognize.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Nor may plaintiffs rely upon the other regulations to prevent alleged precipitous foreclosure by mortgagees. These regulations unfortunately are clearly expressed as alternatives which the mortgagees may turn to if they so choose. They are not obligatory directives. By virtue of the permissive language present in each regulation, the defendant mortgagees are not compelled to follow these measures in lieu of foreclosure. [ Ibid. ]”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “HUD had and has a statutory obligation to formulate and carry out a program reasonably calculated to provide a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family. 42 U.S.C. § 1441”
    2 later decisions 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.