Falzarano v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 506 · 1979
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 17 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Neal (2007), Russell v. Landrieu (1980)
27 federal appellate · 17 district · 6 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. § 1702 · 15 U.S.C. § 78Q (§ 17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1441 (Housing Act of 1949) · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Califano v. Sanders · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The discretionary nature of the Secretary’s duties and the dual goals of assuring financial integrity of the project and maintaining reasonable rents for low and moderate income tenants require a flexibility and ability to deal individually with each project. Close judicial supervision of .. . the decision making process would impede agency action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover on the grounds that they are third party beneficiaries of the regulatory agreement between HUD and the landlords. This theory has been raised and rejected before.” (CRations omitted.) ... Our inquiry must be whether plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries únder the regulatory agreement, as merely incidental beneficiaries cannot sue to enforce the contract. Restatement of Contracts § 145; 4 Corbin on Contracts §§ 774,775, 776, 779C (1951).The regulatory agreements at issue here do not disclose an intent to benefít the tenants, except as they might be incidental benefíciaries; nor can the tenants qualify as either creditor or donor benefíciaries. ” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover on the grounds that they are third party beneficiaries of the regulatory agreement between HUD and the landlords. This theory has been raised and rejected before.... The regulatory agreements at issue here do not disclose an intent to benefit the tenants, except as they might be incidental beneficiaries; nor can the tenants qualify as either creditor or donor beneficiaries. There is, therefore, no basis for federal jurisdiction grounded on a third party beneficiary theory.”
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.