Bloch v. Frischholz’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.3d 562 · 2008
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (§ 801 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))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith · Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney · City of Boerne v. Flores
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Mats, boots, shoes, carts or objects of any sort are prohibited outside Unit entrance doors. 2. Signs or name plates must not be placed on Unit doors. 3. Pets must not be left unattended in the hall. Hallways should not be used as dog/pet runs. 4. No alterations to the common area hallways are allowed. 5. No playing with or riding of bicycles, tricycles, roller blades, etc. is allowed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Bloch v. Frischholz
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.