168 F. Supp. 2d 695 - Markva v. Haveman’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396D (§ 1905 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396U (§ 1930 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 606 (§ 406 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 671 (§ 471 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Edelman v. Jordan · Parratt v. Taylor · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“concrete private interest in the outcome of the suit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a needy child (1) who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home ..., or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, and who is living with his father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, or niece, in a place of residence maintained by one or more of such relatives as his or their own home, and (2) who is (A) under the age of eighteen ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Markva v. Haveman“statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17)(D), and the corresponding regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 435.602(a)(1), prohibit them from prorating grandparents' income to account for a share for a dependent grandchild is based on an assumption that the defendants must utilize a quid pro quo approach within the family unit. The defendants have cited no authority which supports their claim that they must adopt such an approach. Although it may be reasonable to treat income that is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Markva v. Haveman
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.