Hanson v. Veterans Administration’s Empirical Analysis
800 F.2d 1381 · 1986
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco (1989), 135 S. Ct. 2507 - Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3610 (§ 810 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Warth v. Seldin · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Allen v. Wright · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[I]t is enough to show that race was a consideration and played some role in a real estate transaction.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is inappropriate for the court to focus on the merits of the case when considering the issue of standing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Beth Pederson · Beth Pederson“This reasoning misconstrues the purpose and elements of standing. `In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.' Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 , 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). It is inappropriate for the court to focus on the merits of the case when considering the issue of standing.”
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.