Munoz-Mendoza v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
711 F.2d 421 · 1983
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 19 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma (1992), United States v. AVX Corp. (1992)
37 federal appellate · 19 district · 3 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
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant,' or put otherwise, that the exercise of the Court's remedial powers would redress the claimed injuries.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here 'injury' and 'cause' are not obvious, the plaintiff must plead their existence in his complaint with a fair degree of specificity”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is as this point that we part company with the district court. We do not doubt the correctness of its conclusion that “upgrading” and rent increases will continue whether or not Copley Place is built. But we do not see how it can be concluded, on the basis of the record, that upgrading and rent increases would continue at anything like the same pace and in anything like the same amounts in Copley Place’s absence. The Copley Place project is a $450 million undertaking, which its developers expect will create over 6,000 permanent jobs in downtown Boston. It cannot seriously be contended that a commercial complex of this scale will not create a material impact on housing demand in neighborhoods adjacent to it. It is also impossible for us to believe — without record evidence — that, had the HUD grant been denied, some other project or set of projects, waiting in the wings, would soon have stepped forward and taken its place. The record does suggest that $450 million projects in a midtown urban area take considerable time and effort to assemble — in this case, at least five years. The record provides no suggestion that a project similar to Copley Place could have been put togeth er in less than five years. We do not see how to avoid the conclusion that Copley Place at least will cause several additional years of higher rents and more displacement than would have occurred in its absence.”
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.