650 F. Supp. 21 - Miasel v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1715 · 12 U.S.C. § 1715U · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Estelle v. Passmore · Vette Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company · Mobil Oil Corp. v. Department of Energy · Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“HUD determined that plaintiffs decided to purchase and operate a restaurant ... shortly after securing the FHA-insured loan on their home, and that by making this decision plaintiffs put at risk their ability to meet their mortgage obligations. Thus HUD determined that the plaintiffs’ default was caused by circumstances within their control.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If HUD was using a per se rule, it is hard to understand why it bothered to gather so much information about financial status, case history, and assignment eligibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to be eligible for the mortgage assignment program, plaintiff needed to meet the ... HUD criteria [listed under Sec. 203.650(a) ].”
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.