574 F. Supp. 719 - Angleton v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2017
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1701Q (Living Equitably: Grandparents Aiding Children and Youth Act of 2003) · 12 U.S.C. § 1701T · 12 U.S.C. § 1709 · 12 U.S.C. § 1713 · 12 U.S.C. § 1715E · 12 U.S.C. § 1715K · 12 U.S.C. § 1715L (Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987) · 12 U.S.C. § 1715Z
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[The appellee] appears to argue that plaintiffs lack standing because they have no legal right to the relief they seek. [The appellee] has confused standing with failure to state a claim. The two are conceptually distinct: when standing is at issue, the court asks whether the plaintiffs are the proper parties to bring the action, whereas failure to state a claim focuses not on the parties but on the existence of a cause of action (i.e., on the merits). Kirby v. Department of HUD, 675 F.2d 60 , 63-64 (3d Cir.1982); Bowman v. Wilson, 672 F.2d 1145 , 1151 n. 10 (3d Cir. 1982).'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has been described as “the major federal commitment to non-subsidized housing.” ... It, like the Act’s numerous other mortgage insurance provisions, 2 furnishes an incentive for private parties to build and finance residential housing by authorizing the Secretary to guarantee mortgages given by private developers to private lenders. Section 1713 empowers the Secretary to insure mortgages covering residential property held by governmental bodies or by any other mortgagor approved by the Secretary which, until the termination of all obligations of the Secretary under the insurance ..., is regulated or restricted by the Secretary as to rents or sales, charges, capital structure, rate of return, and methods of operation to such extent and in such manner as to provide reasonable rentals to tenants and a reasonable return on the investment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to such extent and in such manner as to provide reasonable rentals to tenants and a reasonable return on the investment.”
1 later decision 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.