Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 665 F.2d 138 - Devines v. Maier

Devines v. Maier’s Empirical Analysis

665 F.2d 138 · 1981

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2022

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

15019811990200020102020decided

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 Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Agins v. City of Tiburon · Kaiser Aetna v. United States

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Devines I "). Thus, for purposes of this appeal, arising out of the district court's judgment on remand, we will summarily review only those material facts pertinent to the present decision. 3 In 1975, the City of Milwaukee applied for and received a Community Development Block Grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The Statement of Purpose of the City of Milwaukee's housing code was originally codified at section 75-2 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances and subsequently was repealed and codified throughout the present chapter 51 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[t]o a great extent, whether or not a regulation of private property rights for a public purpose constitutes a taking depends upon the extent of interference with the private right. When the 'regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking.'”
    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.