Burroughs v. Hills’s Empirical Analysis
741 F.2d 1525 · 1984
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Association of Mexican-American Educators v. California (2000), Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Neal (2007)
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 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 12 U.S.C. § 1701 (Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act) · 12 U.S.C. § 1701T · 12 U.S.C. § 1702 · 12 U.S.C. § 1713 · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 42 U.S.C. § 1441 (Housing Act of 1949) · 42 U.S.C. § 1441A · 42 U.S.C. § 1469
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Cort v. Ash · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is entitled to little weight in a case such as this where the defendants are . . . public officials whose expenses of suit were borne by the United States, which is to say by the federal taxpayer. Most taxpayers are persons of limited means; most government revenue is raised from such persons, and not from the wealthy few. The denial of costs to the defendants in this case will not contribute, however slightly, to a more egalitarian distribution of the nation's wealth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“meant to be ... an independent source of legal rights or claims against the United States Government and its officials”); Anderson v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 701 F.2d 112, 114 (10th Cir.1983) (stating that procedures in HUD's”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`entitled to notice so far as it is an official interpretation of statutes or regulations with which it is not in conflict.'”
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.