Bowen v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2004
2 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1302 (§ 1102 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Stanley v. Illinois · Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith · Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York · Vlandis v. Kline
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It cannot be doubted that the departmental regulation in effect here does create a presumption that income of legally responsible relatives is available to the welfare recipient. The presumption, however, does not foreclose individualized determination and is not irrebuttable. Under Section 3237.33 of the Pa. Manual the income presumed available under Section 3237.322 may be waived when it appears unsound, unreasonable, or impracticable to expect the legally responsible relative to contribute such income to the support of their child. Interpreting this section within constitutional principles, we read this waiver provision so as to afford the affected individuals an opportunity to contradict the presumption and to seek exception from the rule. Should the department fail to waive the presumption in capricious disregard of competent evidence, such action would, of course, be reviewable by this Court as an abuse of discretion.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . §§ 3234.6 and 3234.61 provide for a conclusive presumption that the income of a legally responsible relative is available to dependents living in the same assistance unit. The legally responsible relative is considered to be living with the AFDC applicant ‘if he and the relative occupy a common dwelling,’ even if that relative is residing elsewhere for purposes such as employment, hospitalization, or institutionalization.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In establishing financial eligibility and the amount of the assistance payment, only such net income as is actually available for current use on a regular basis will be considered....” 45 C.F.R. 233.90(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wohlgemuth v. Soto
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.