Holbrook v. Pitt’s Empirical Analysis
643 F.2d 1261 · 1981
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 10 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Patkus v. Sangamon-Cass Consortium (1985), Grayden v. Rhodes (2003)
55 federal appellate · 10 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Perry v. Sindermann
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Displays an astonishing lack of perspective about government social welfare programs. If the tenants are not the primary beneficiaries of a program designed to provide housing assistance payments to low income families, the legitimacy of the multi-billion dollar Section 8 program is placed in grave doubt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“legally cognizable rights under the contract.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
2 later decisions 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.