64 F. Supp. 2d 657 - Johnson v. Economic Development Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Lemon v. Kurtzman · School District of Abington Township Pennsylvania v. Schempp J Murray III · Everson v. Board of Education
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court also finds it significant that the funds at issue in this case did not take the form of a grant or loan of tax-raised money. Instead, one hundred percent of the funds came from private investors .... The Oakland EDC served merely as a conduit — that is, defendant simply provided a means by which private investors could finance the project. Not a single penny of the funds came from any state, county, or municipal source, and no public entity has any obligation whatsoever in connection with the sale or purchase of these limited obligation bonds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“standing due to the potential loss of revenue caused by the issuance of tax-exempt bonds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“alleviate and prevent conditions of unemployment.”
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.