Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 FSUPP 1353 - Coleman v. Block

Coleman v. Block’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
July 2005
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 11 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently July 2005 · most notably Allison v. Block (1983), Coleman v. Block (1984)

24 federal appellate · 11 district ·

320198319902000decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1475 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 7 U.S.C. § 1981 · 7 U.S.C. § 1981A

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · Fuentes v. Shevin · Weinberger v. Salfi

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “1. defendants shall give any plaintiffs against whom the defendants propose to proceed at least 30 days notice: a. That informs the borrower of his right to a hearing to contest the proposed action and to establish eligibility for loan deferral pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 1981a'; b. That provides the borrower with a statement that gives the reasons for the proposed action; c. That informs the borrower of the factors that determine eligibility for loan deferrals; d. That informs the borrower of the official who would preside at the hearing. The official designated shall not have been actively involved in the initial decision to take the proposed action. 2. The official presiding at any such hearing shall present his decision in writing, giving his reasons therefore [sic], which decision shall be furnished to the borrower.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In addition to any other authority that the Secretary may have to defer principal and interest and forego foreclosure, the Secretary may permit, at the request of the borrower, the deferral of principal and interest on any outstanding loan made, insured, or held by the Secretary under this chapter, or under the provisions of any other law administered by the Farmers Home Administration, and forego foreclosure of any such loan, for such period as the Secretary deems necessary upon a showing by the borrower that due to circumstances beyond the borrower’s control, the borrower is temporarily unable to continue making payments of such principal and interest when due without unduly impairing the standard of living of the borrower. The Secretary may permit interest that accrues during the deferral period of any loan deferred under this section to bear no interest during or after such period: Provided, That if the security instrument securing such loan is foreclosed such interest as is included in the purchase price at the foreclosure shall become part of the principal and draw interest from the date of foreclosure at the rate prescribed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““all persons who have obtained a farmer program loan from the Farmers Home Administration, and who are or may be eligible to obtain a farmer program loan from the Farmers Home Administration, and whose loans are or will be administered in the Farmers Home Administration offices located throughout the United States, but the national class does not include a) borrowers who reside in states where a state-wide class action is requested (and not denied at a later time), or is already certified; or b) borrowers who have presently filed actions that directly relate to the implementation of 7 U.S.C. § 1981a, the constitutionality of a pre-hearing cutoff of necessary family living and farm operating expenses, and the constitutionality of the Farmers Home Administration appeals procedure.” [T]his Court presumes that all litigants who are presently before another court on the same issues have opted out; however, such litigants may request permission from their presiding court to enter the national class.”
    2 later decisions 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.