Clark v. Housing Authority of Alma’s Empirical Analysis
971 F.2d 723 · 1992
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Combs v. Plantation Patterns (1997), Mann v. Taser International, Inc. (2009)
25 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security · Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Swift & Co. v. United States · United States v. James
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'This court reviews an award of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion; nevertheless, that standard of review still allows us to closely scrutinize questions of law decided by the district court in reaching a fee award.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the earliest panel opinion resolving the issue in question binds this circuit until the [C]ourt resolves the issue en banc.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is contended ... that a consent decree in the Circuit Court cannot be appealed from, but we do not so understand the law. Sect. 692 of the Revised Statutes provides that an appeal shall be allowed from all final decrees in the circuit courts, & c., when the matter in dispute exceeds $5,000, and that this court “shall receive, hear, and determine such appeals.” This makes appeals to this court, within the prescribed limits, a matter of right, and requires us, when they are taken, to hear and decide them. If, when the case gets here, it appears that the decree appealed from was consented to by the appellant, we cannot consider any errors that may be assigned which were in law waived by the consent, but we must still receive and decide the case. If all the errors complained of come within the waiver, the decree below will be affirmed, but only after hearing. We have, therefore, jurisdiction of this appeal.”
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.