Max R. Kargman v. Thomas A. Sullivan, Bertram A. Druker v. City of Boston’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.2d 2 · 1977
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Franklin Tower One, L.L.C. v. N.M. (1999), Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc. v. Department of Public Health (1979)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · Perez. v. Campbell · Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America v. P Lockridge
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We . . . think it fair to preserve the escrow fund under this limitation. 6 1. All funds and interest thereon paid into the fund from its inception to the effective date of HUD's preemption regulation, shall be held subject to the following conditions. 7 a. If, at any time within three months from the date of this decision, the district court has decided the Equal Protection and Contract Clause claims, this court will entertain a motion for relief or stay pending appeal by a party on either side of the controversy. 8 b. If, after three months from the date of this decision the district court has not rendered decision for any reason not connected with dilatoriness on the part of defendants and defendant-intervenors, this court will entertain a motion for distribution of the amount in escrow resulting from the payments described in paragraph 1. 9 2. Payments based on HUD action since the date of the preemption regulation should continue pending the district court's decision on this aspect of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kargman v. Sullivan““[T]his is not a case where a national administrator, surveying all of his problems of dealing with local rent control, had concluded that the federal program nationally is jeopardy because of varying approaches to setting rent ceilings, or administrative entanglements, or the risk that, local regulation would discourage participation in the program.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in the case at bar where Boston, in pursuit of its own interests that are basically consistent with federal purposes, operates an independent regulatory scheme that has no demonstrated impact on the federal program, but merely has some financial consequences for some landlords who participate in the program.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.