Price v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
823 F.2d 1114 · 1987
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh (2006), Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Gerber Truck Service, Inc. (1989)
30 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1437F · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Heckler v. Chaney · Sosna v. Iowa · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The argument for a federal rule is particularly strong in these housing cases; as we suggested earlier, it would be odd to think that a suit by tenants and applicants for federally subsidized housing against developers of such housing for breach of contracts approved by HUD and fundamental to the achievement of HUD’s objectives under section 1437f would have to be brought in state court and decided in accordance with state contract law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he issue is potentially so important to the success of the program — since on its resolution may turn the amount of lower-income housing actually provided— that we believe that Congress, had it thought about the matter, would have wanted the question to be decided by federal courts applying a uniform principle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“since parties cannot confer federal jurisdiction by stipulation, they cannot confer federal jurisdiction by agreeing that their dispute shall be governed by federal law if, were it not for the stipulation, the suit would arise under state law.”
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.