Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 939 F.2d 586 - Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development’s Empirical Analysis

939 F.2d 586 · 1991

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2020

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

901991200020102020decided

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. § 1715L (Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987) · 12 U.S.C. § 1715T · 28 U.S.C. § 2412

Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Pierce v. Underwood · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · Hall v. Cole · Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jean

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In a shareholder derivative action, the successful shareholder plaintiff confers a substantial benefit on all of the shareholders of the defendant corporation. Any fees assessed against the corporation can be spread proportionately among all of the shareholders, who are the real beneficiaries of the litigation, because the corporation is the alter ego of the shareholders.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[The Government’s position] was not unreasonable. The issue was a close one. Neither the statutory language nor the legislative history of the [act in question] expressly referred to voluntary mortgage insurance termination, although, as noted in our prior opinion, a literal application of the statutory term “change in status” and the relevant legislative history supported a broader interpretation.”
    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.