Carr v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 17 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Whelan v. Abell (1992), Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham (2015)
6 federal appellate · 17 district · 11 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 Hodgson v. United Mine Workers of America · 13 Ill. App. 3d 359 - City of Rock Falls v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. · Song Jook Suh v. George K. Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service · Universal Airline, Inc. v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Henry V. Vaccaro Construction Co. v. A. J. DePace, Inc.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“business expectancies, not grounded on present contractual relationships but which are commercially reasonable to anticipate, are considered to be property and therefore protected from unjustified interference.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An applicant such as appellant in this case cannot expect upon the basis of any experience that his application will be automatically approved within a specified period of time. Appellant cannot contend that because he encounters opposition to his application, some of which may be malicious, that the opponent is thereby interfering with his “expectancies” so as to constitute a tort. Rather the person who is “interfering” with the applicant’s petition for an alley closing and a zoning exception is participating in procedures fixed by statute which specifically invite opposition. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant’s “expectancies” of approval by the Transportation Committee and the Board are not of the character that may be protected by this cause of action for the tort of interference with property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. Carr“To require the trial court to attempt to determine the cause of the lapse of time in a tort case such as this would lead to futile speculation since there is no definite answer as to why the administrative bodies here took as long as they did in determining appellant’s applications.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. Carr
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.