Daniel K. Mayers v. Peter S. Ridley’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.2d 630 · 1972
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights (1977), United States of America, Appellant-Appellee v. City of Black Jack, Missouri, Appellee-Appellant (1975)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (§ 801 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3602 (§ 802 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3615 (§ 816 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Dandridge v. Williams · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Bolling v. Sharpe · Elkins v. United States
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"Fortunately, it is unnecessary to mediate this scholarly dispute, since this is not a close case. Whatever the vagaries of `state action' at the margin, the core concepts remain clear. When the state acts directly and unambiguously in a discriminatory manner, it violates the basic command of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Brown, 3 Cir., 392 F.2d 120, 125 , cert. denied, 391 U.S. 921 , 88 S.Ct. 1811 , 20 L.Ed.2d 657 (1968) . We are not dealing here with a case where tangential state involvement is used to implicate otherwise private activity with `state action.' See, e. g., Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority [ 365 U.S. 715 , 81 S.Ct. 856 , 6 L.Ed.2d 45 ], supra; Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 4 Cir., 323 F.2d 959 (1963) ; Green v. Kennedy, D.D.C., 309 F.Supp. 1127 , appeal dismissed, sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 , 90 S.Ct. 2169 , 26 L.Ed.2d 539 (1970) . Cf. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 172-177 , 92 S.Ct. 1965, 1971-1974 , 32 L.Ed.2d 627 (1972) . Nor is it even a situation in which a facially neutral government statute or policy has the effect in certain situations of denying racial justice. See Hunter v. Erickson [ 393 U.S. 385 , 89 S.Ct. 557 , 21 L.Ed.2d 616 ], supra; Reitman v. Mulkey [ 387 U.S. 369 , 87 S.Ct. 1627 , 18 L.Ed.2d 830 ], supra. The Recorder of Deeds is a state official, and the activities of the Recorder's office are a state responsibility. The Recorder has made a policy decision to consi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Roy v. Ducote“notice” and "statement” are to be treated as surplusage, they must mean that the Act prohibits at least some communications which cannot be classified as advertisements. Although the legislative history of this section is sparse, it indicates beyond doubt that as the words themselves suggest, Congress intended to go beyond advertising to reach other sorts of "notices” and "statements” as well. [Emphasis original.] 85 . The wording of section 3604(c) was originally included in S.1026 which was introduced but not passed by the 90th Congress. In a draft of S.1026 the phrase "oral or written” preceded "notice, statement, or advertisement”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.