Devines v. Maier’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 4601 (Uniform Relocation Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 4622 · 42 U.S.C. § 4637 · 42 U.S.C. § 5301 (Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 5305
Relies on Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Armstrong v. United States · United States v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. Petty Motor Co.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5305, the ICEP was designed to improve housing code enforcement in certain deteriorating areas of Milwaukee and the CERP was designed to provide relocation benefits to tenants of dwellings that the City ordered razed and removed under Wisconsin law. 4 Following 1975, the City continued to receive yearly block grant funds which were appropriated, in part, to the ICEP and the CERP. 1 The funds allocated to the CERP were never”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Devines v. Maier“The City has continued to receive yearly block grant funding from HUD. The ICEP and the CERP programs have continued to receive appropriations from the yearly grants. The amounts allocated to ICEP have increased almost yearly since the initial 1975 grant, and now stand at $400,000 a year. The CERP funding, however, was decreased to $170,000 in 1976, and to $50,000 a year thereafter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Devines v. Maier“(1) reside within the geographic area designated in the City's block grant application (a low income area which is practically coterminous with the ICEP target area); (2) be a 'family' or an 'individual' which is in lawful occupancy of a rented dwelling; and (3) be served with a 'notice to vacate' because the building has been ordered razed and removed pursuant to Wisconsin law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Devines v. Maier
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.