Young v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.2d 870 · 1979
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2005
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4601 (Uniform Relocation Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 5301 (Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 5304
Relies on Berman v. Parker · Addington v. Texas · Sonesta International Hotels Corp. v. Wellington Associates · Barrett v. United States · Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Inc. v. Citizens for Community Action
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the established law in this circuit that the URA definition of ‘program or project undertaken by a Federal agency, or with Federal financial assistance’ does not encompass the situation when a private party undertakes a federally assisted program or project and acquires property. Moorer v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 561 F.2d 175 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 919 , 98 S.Ct. 2266 , 56 L.Ed. 2d 760 (1978); see also Alexander v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, U. S. , n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 1572 n. 9 , 60 L.Ed. 2d 28 n. 9 (1979); Conway v. Harris, 586 F.2d 1137 (7th Cir. 1978); Parlane Sportswear Co. v. Weinberger, 513 F.2d 835 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 925 , 96 S.Ct. 269 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 252 (1975). Thus the URA would not apply to the Pershing-Waterman redevelopment project if it were found that the project had been undertaken by a private party as opposed to a federal, state, or local governmental agency. . . . Resolution of . . . [this issue] . . . depends upon whether the appellants’ characterization of the project as a joint undertaking in the nature of a partnership between the private developer and the City of St. Louis accurately portrays the organization of the project. We find that the evidence is clearly inadequate to establish that the activities of the City of St. Louis and the private developer are sufficiently intertwined to characterize them as one project undertaken by a state instrumentality.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) preliminary injunction should issue only upon a clear showing of either (1) probable success on the merits and possible irreparable injury, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“any condemnee or other person not illegally in occupancy of real property who moves or moves his personal property as a result of the acqui sition for a program or project of such real property, in whole or in part, or as the result of written notice from the acquiring agency of intent to acquire or order to vacate such real property. ...”
1 later decision 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.