Conway v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
586 F.2d 1137 · 1978
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1993
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 1437 (HOPE VI Program Reauthorization and Small Community Mainstreet Rejuvenation and Housing Act of 2003) · 42 U.S.C. § 1437F · 42 U.S.C. § 4601 (Uniform Relocation Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 4622
Relies on Addington v. Texas · Barrett v. United States · Alexander v. U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development · Parlane Sportswear Co. v. Weinberger · Moorer v. Department of Housing & Urban Development
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“protected by the URA means: 16 any person who ... moves from real property, or moves his personal property from real property, as a result of the acquisition of such real property, in whole or in part, or as the result of the written order of the acquiring agency to vacate real property, for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency, or with Federal financial assistance.... 17 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4601(6). 18 The plaintiffs contend that Mr. Chody was an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gomez v. Chody“was addressed and specifically rejected in Moorer : 32 The focus is not on the degree of involvement by a federal or state agency, or a program of such agency, which results in the acquisition, but is instead on whether the person involved was displaced by governmental action either acquiring the property or issuing an order to vacate the property. 561 F.2d at 183. 33 We follow Moorer and hold that appellants do not qualify for benefits as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Austin v. Andrus“[c]learly, no section [of the URA] provides that benefits should be extended to a person such as the plaintiff who was displaced by the acquisition of real property by a private party who would receive federal assistance in the future.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gomez v. Chody
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.