Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman’s Empirical Analysis
762 F.2d 1550 · 1985
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Nelson (1989), McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles (1990)
22 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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. § 1441 (Housing Act of 1949) · 42 U.S.C. § 1480 · 42 U.S.C. § 1485 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (§ 801 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Cannon v. University of Chicago · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Dugan v. Rank · Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) That “[c]ourts will not require exhaustion when the administrative remedy is inadequate because it does not exist, or would not provide relief commensurate with the claim, or would unreasonably delay the action and thereby create a serious irreparable injury.” Id. (citations omitted); (2) That “exhaustion [will not] be required if the claim clearly will be denied, or where administrative action will not resolve the merits of the claim ...” Id.; and finally, (3) That “exhaustion is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but one subject to the discretion of the trial court,” unless Congress has specified otherwise. Id. (citations omitted); See also Schwartz, at § 8.32.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In analyzing the use of any sovereign immunity defense, the first question is whether the doctrine applies at all: Is the action a suit against the United States as a sovereign? The answer is obtained by examining the nature of the relief which may be provided. Alabama Rural Fire Insurance Co. v. Naylor, 530 F.2d 1221, 1225 (5th Cir.1976). See Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 , 687 n. 6, 69 S.Ct. 1457 , 1460 n. 6, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949). An action is one against the United States as a sovereign where the judgment sought is to be satisfied from monies of the federal Treasury, or where the judgment interferes with public administration, or where the judgment’s effect is to compel or restrain the government’s actions. Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620 , 83 S.Ct. 999, 1006 , 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963); Alabama Rural Fire Insurance Co. v. Naylor, 530 F.2d at 1225.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[affect] other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground.”
2 later decisions 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.