Evans v. Lynn’s Empirical Analysis
537 F.2d 571 · 1975
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill (1978), Public Citizen, and MacHinery Dealers National Association v. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation (1977)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 Katz v. United States · Warth v. Seldin · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Baker v. Carr · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“capable of resolution and redress in the federal courts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““All executive departments and agencies shall administer their programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively to further the purposes of this subchapter and shall cooperate with the Secretary to further such purposes.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“There is not the slightest indication in the present record that the plaintiffs will be adversely affected by the federal funding of the New Castle sewer and recreation projects or that if the funding were enjoined as demanded the plaintiffs would be benefitted. What they seek is a ban on federal funding to New Castle because it is allegedly a predominantly white, wealthy, exclusionary community, not because they would thereby gain anything. . In Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284 , 96 S.Ct. 1538 , 47 L.Ed.2d 792 (1976), for instance, the plaintiffs, who were tenants in federally funded, racially segregated housing in predominantly black ghetto areas in Chicago, stood to benefit from the relief sought, an order which would eliminate the discrimination against them by directing that such housing, for which they had applied as tenants, must be constructed in predominantly white areas where the plaintiffs might then reside . . . . Here plaintiffs gain no comparable benefit from the injunction sought. The most they can realize is the satisfaction that federal funds will not be misused. Absent statutory authorization, this is not enough to confer standing. They must show some stake in the outcome.”
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.