Garnett v. Zeilinger’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 7 U.S.C. § 2013 · 7 U.S.C. § 2014 · 7 U.S.C. § 2020 · 7 U.S.C. § 2021
Relies on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes · Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes · Davis v. Romney · Brown v. Trustees of Boston University · Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“certify a household's eligibility. Id. § 2020(e)(3). This certification process must be completed and benefits provided no later than thirty days after the application's filing. Id. For certain households with extremely low income-less than $150 per month or liquid assets less than $100-the State must provide benefits no later than seven days after an application is filed. Id. § 2020(e)(9)(A). These are known as”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garnett v. Zeilinger“The question the Court confronts is simply whether the applications are being ... processed”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Damus v. Nielsen“) Congress originally enacted the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garnett v. Zeilinger
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.