McGuane v. Chenango Court, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
431 F.2d 1189 · 1970
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably Girard v. 94th Street & Fifth Avenue Corp. (1976), Langevin v. Chenango Court, Inc. (1971)
20 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1401 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Shelley v. Kraemer · Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham · Escalera v. New York City Housing Authority · Clarence Eisen v. Oliver C. Eastman · Holmes v. New York City Housing Authority
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A tenant’s interest in not being evicted is a good deal more ‘personal’ than a landlord's interest in resisting rent controls, the situation to which [Eisen and Davenport v. Berman, 2 Cir., 420 F.2d 294 ] were addressed. Indeed, we decided that such an interest is within the protection of the Civil Rights Act implicitly in Holmes v. New York City Housing Authority, 398 F.2d 262 (2 Cir. 1968), and explicitly in Escalera v. New York City Housing Authority, 425 F.2d 853, 864-865 ([2 Cir.] 1970).” McGuane v. Chenango Court, Inc., 431 F.2d 1189 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 994 , 91 S.Ct. 1238 , 28 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Neither, despite some language in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948), can state action be found in New York providing defendant with the same right to secure the eviction of a tenant by a proceeding in its courts that it gives to all landlords; the one thing now almost universally agreed is that such a rationale for that landmark decision would be altogether too far-reaching.” 8”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kerrigan v. Boucher“Receipt of federal benefits in the form of mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act does not make the defendant an agency of the State of New York so as to require it to accord the procedural due process which the Fourteenth Amendment demands of a state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hodges v. Metts
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.