Howard v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
738 F.2d 722 · 1984
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Wright v. Holbrook (1986), Whitworth Bros Storage Company v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (1986)
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1404A · 42 U.S.C. § 1437 (HOPE VI Program Reauthorization and Small Community Mainstreet Rejuvenation and Housing Act of 2003) · 42 U.S.C. § 1437A · 42 U.S.C. § 1437C · 42 U.S.C. § 1437G · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn. · Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although the plaintiff may be a member of the public and thus an intended beneficiary of the statute, the likelihood that Congress intended members of the general public to enforce such statutes is not great. In contrast, the inference that Congress intended to create legally enforceable rights is strongest when the statutory language focuses unmistakably on a specific and identifiable class of beneficiaries.” (Howard, 738 F.2d at 726 .)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Whether the Plaintiffs are members of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted; (2) Whether the legislative history either explicitly or implicitly reveals an intent to create or deny a private cause of action; (3) Whether the implication of a private remedy would be consistent with the legislative scheme; and (4) Whether the cause of action is one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) 30 per centum of the family’s monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 per centum of the family’s monthly income; or (3) if the family is receiving payments for welfare assistance from a public agency and a part of such payments, adjusted in accordance with the family’s actual housing costs, is specifically designated by such agency to meet the family’s housing costs, the portion of such payments which is so designated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.