Fredericks v. Kreps’s Empirical Analysis
571 F.2d 1316 · 1978
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 6701 (Intergovernmental Antirecession Assistance Act of 1977) · 42 U.S.C. § 6707
Relies on Morgan v. Fletcher · Ruiz v. Estelle · Louisiana Consumer's League, Inc. v. Louisiana State Board of Optometry Examiners
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Secretary shall not consider or approve or make a grant for any project for which any application was not submitted for a grant under this chapter on or before December 23, 1976. (2) The Secretary may receive applications for grants for projects under this chapter— (A) from the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; (B) from Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages; (C) from any applicant to use any allocation which may be made pursuant to regulation, to the extent necessary to expend such allocation, if a sufficient number of applications were not submitted on or before December 23, 1976, to use such allocation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fredericks v. Kreps“EDA’s decision to deem [applications for amounts in excess of an applicant’s planning target] a nullity is not in keeping with the very clear intent of Congress. The more reasonable alternative would be to allow each applicant to scale down its project so that its request would be within the planning target funds and, if the nature of the project prohibited this, then that would be a compelling reason for new applications to be accepted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fredericks v. Kreps“1. Bells’s Ferry Bridge — a $650,000 project for the construction of a bridge over the Wolfe River which would lead to a new manufacturing plant under construction. 2. North Gulfport — a $327,000 version of the subsurface drainage project. 3. District Building- — an $81,000 version of the renovation project for the Southern Mississippi Planning and Development District Building.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fredericks v. Kreps
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.