Sheikh v. Rabin’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. Sullivan · United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America · Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[One neighbor] once told [the plaintiff] that the subdivision is “all white” and that he did not think [the plaintiff] would “fit in.” The neighbors sometimes referred to [the plaintiff] and his family at [public] meetings as “you people,” and [a neighbor] suggested he move somewhere else, closer to his “people.” At one meeting, [a neighbor] displayed pictures of narrow houses in poor countries, sarcastically suggesting that the pictures supported the conclusion that a narrow house should be enough for [the plaintiff]. Another time, some of the neighbors (he does not specify who) expressed worry that [the plaintiff] would allow more than one family to live in his house. (His two adult children will live in the house with him and his wife.) These neighbors talked about other areas in which one “colored fami ly” moving in was a prelude to being “flooded by them” and about how some single-family homes rented by “latinos and blacks” ended up housing multiple families. [The plaintiff] also alleges that [a neighbor] said something threatening about the house burning down if it is built. (Though accepting as true that [that neighbor] said something threatening, [the judge] noted that the allegations are fuzzy. [The plaintifffs appellate brief hardly clarifies matters; he maintains that, whatever [the neighbor] said, it was threatening, but he explains that he “can merely speculate on that threat” since only [the neighbor] knows “his true intent.”)”
2 later decisions 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.