Price’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Asw Msw Osw Ssw v. Oregon I (2005), 459 F. Supp. 2d 919 - California Alliance of Child & Family Services v. Allenby (2006)
5 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 Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Alexander v. Sandoval · Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn. · Gonzaga University v. Doe
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether Congress intended the provision in question to benefit the plaintiff; (2) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the asserted right is not so vague and amorphous that its enforcement would strain judicial competence; and (3) whether the provision giving rise to the right is couched in mandatory, rather than precatory, terms.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The [district] court ... found ... that the City’s “redevelopment activities, which included code enforcement, notices of vacating and demolition, and the acquisition of hotels through purchase and eminent domain proceedings, amounted to a ‘single undertaking.’ ” ... Indeed, “the circumstances strongly suggested” that “the City’s goals to redevelop downtown through acquisition of buildings in the area ... precipitated code enforcement.” ... Accordingly, the court concluded that Plaintiffs’ displacement occurred “in connection with” downtown redevelopment activities. None of these findings are clearly erroneous; indeed, all are amply supported by evidence in the record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Id. As the district court recognized, Foster Parents' asserted right is for reimbursement of costs, and this statute is almost identical in structure to the one this court recognized as creating an enforceable right in Price . In Price , we analyzed § 104(d) and (k) of the Housing and Community Development Act (”
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.