Snell v. Wyman’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 9 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2003 · most notably Dandridge v. Williams (1970), New York State Department of Social Services v. Dublino (1973)
8 federal appellate · 9 district · 26 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1201 (§ 1001 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1351 (§ 1401 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. § 304 (§ 4 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 404 (§ 204 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Williams v. People of State of New York · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Sherbert v. Verner
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“..., we assume that rational men could agree fully with plaintiffs' view that the painful consequences of the recovery statutes outweigh the measurable benefits the State seeks from them. We also accept without questioning the view of the scholar who testified in his deposition that `any social work purpose in the recovery provisions is quite beyond [his] comprehension'. The plain flaw that none the less destroys plaintiffs' thesis is that it is brought to the wrong forum. Plaintiffs' complaints might move us to vote for changes if we sat as state legislators ... Against plaintiffs' views, as defendants point out, there are arguments of policy which can scarcely be dismissed as frivolous, whether or not we would find them convincing if the judgments of policy were for us. The State is entitled, they note, to consider relative need and available resources in distributing its limited welfare funds. Even `trivial' recoveries ... need not be deemed beneath notice. Whether they are correct or not, legislators could plausibly judge that a sense of obligation to contribute or repay if possible serves some function relevant to the concern for human dignity. Moreover, the objectives of rehabilitation and self-support are not seriously impeded at all; ... ... If we were free to enforce what we may modestly deem our more enlightened view, we might seriously consider the changes plaintiffs propose. But we have no such power, and it is better in the end for everyone that this is so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Like the life of the law generally, the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed as an exercise in logic. It is ancient learning by now that a classification meets the equal protection test `if it is practical and is not reviewable unless palpably arbitrary.' Orient Insurance Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 562 , 19 S.Ct. 281, 282 , 43 L.Ed. 552 (1869). If the classification has `some reasonable basis,' it cannot be held offensive to the Equal Protection Clause `because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.' Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78 , 31 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911). `The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations,illogical, it may be, and unscientific.' Metropolis Theater Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 69-70, 33 S.Ct. 441, 443 , 57 L.Ed. 730 (1913)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. If a recipient of public assistance and care shall have a right of action, suit, claim, counterclaim or demand against another on account of any personal injuries suffered by such recipient, then the public welfare official for the public welfare district providing such assistance and care shall have a lien for such amount as may be fixed by the public welfare official not exceeding, however, the total amount of such assistance and care furnished by such public welfare official on and after the date when such injuries were incurred. The welfare commissioner shall endeavor to ascertain whether such person, firm or corporation alleged to be responsible for such injuries is insured with a liability insurance company, as the case may be, and the name thereof.”
2 later decisions 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.