Faraca v. Clements’s Empirical Analysis
506 F.2d 956 · 1975
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Tomka v. Seiler Corp. (1995), Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc. (2000)
51 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Monroe v. Pape · Pierson v. Ray · Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. · Cooper v. Aaron
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws or proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. 42 U.S.C. § 1982 states: All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The right to “lease” is protected by § 1982 against the actions of third parties, as well as against the actions of the immediate lessor. Respondents’ [defendant corporation] actions in refusing to approve the assignment of the membership share in this case was clearly an interference with [petitioner’s] right to “lease.” A narrow construction of the language of § 1982 would be quite inconsistent with the broad and sweeping nature of the protection meant to be afforded by § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 . from which § 1982 was derived. 396 U.S. at 237 , 90 S.Ct. at 404 .”
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.