King v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Alschuler v. Department of Housing & Urban Development (1982), Naacp v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
14 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1437F · 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (§ 801 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3608 (§ 808 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 5301 (Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Califano v. Sanders · Sierra Club v. Morton · O'Shea v. Littleton
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(c) The site shall not be located in: (1) An area of minority concentration unless (i) sufficient, comparable opportunities exist for housing for minority families, in the income range to be served by the proposed project, outside areas of minority concentration, or (ii) the project is necessary to meet overriding housing needs which cannot otherwise feasibly be met in that housing market area. (An “overriding need” may not serve as the basis for determining that a site is acceptable if the only reason the need cannot otherwise feasibly be met is that discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, or national origin renders sites outside areas of minority concentration unavailable.) (2) A racially mixed area if the project will cause a significant increase in the proportion of minority to nonminority residents in the area. (d) The site shall promote greater choice of housing opportunities and avoid undue concentration of assisted persons in areas containing a high proportion of low-income persons.” 24 C.F.R. § 880.112 (c) & (d).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In general a neighborhood represents any section of a region or city, having indefinite boundaries, and which is drawn together by the shared perceptions of its residents as to what constitutes their neighborhood, by the facilities generally available for their use, by their social and economic status, and by natural or manmade physical boundaries. ... [I]maginary census tract boundaries alone reflect neither a community’s perception of itself nor the social cohesiveness of a given area. While census tracts may provide HUD with a general indication of residential patterns, they are inadequate as the sole indicators of the racial or economic composition of housing in a neighborhood.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We do not view [the duty to integrate] as a ‘one-way street’ limited to introduction of non-white persons into a predominantly white community. The Authority is obligated to take affirmative steps to promote racial integration even though this may in some instances not operate to the immediate advantage of some nonwhite persons. An authority may not, for instance, select sites for projects which will be occupied by non-whites only in areas already heavily concentrated with a high proportion of non-whites ... Not only may such practices be enjoined, but affirmative action to erase the effects of past discrimination and desegregate housing patterns may be ordered.” (emphasis added).”
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.