Joy v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis
479 F.2d 1236 · 1973
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 17 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Jefferson Garden Associates v. Greene (1987), Holbrook v. Pitt (1981)
19 federal appellate · 17 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 12 U.S.C. § 1701S · 12 U.S.C. § 1701T · 12 U.S.C. § 1715 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A (Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Goldberg v. Kelly · Perry v. Sindermann · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Certain attributes of ‘property’ interests protected by procedural due process emerge from these decisions. To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined. It is a purpose of the constitutional right to a hearing to provide an opportunity for a person to vindicate those claims.” 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In view of the congressional policies of providing a decent home (with stability and security) for every American family, and of prohibiting arbitrary and discriminatory action, bolstered by the FHA regulations and custom, we find in the scheme of the National Housing Act and the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 a property right or entitlement to continue occupancy until there exists a cause to evict other than the mere expiration of the lease. We therefore hold that the lease provision purporting to give the landlord power to terminate without cause at the expiration of a fixed term is invalid.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . . the general goal of both national and state housing programs is to provide for the necessitous persons a decent home and a suitable living environment. This includes adequate, safe, and sanitary quarters. But it also implies an atmosphere of stability, security, neighborliness, and social justice.””
2 later decisions 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.