Jefferson v. Hackney’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1201 (§ 1001 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 1 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 604 (§ 404 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Shapiro v. Thompson · Douglas v. People of State of California
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Summary of Social Security Amendments of 1967”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In making the appropriation for the present biennium the Legislature could have considered numerous factors. The purpose, as set out in the Social Security program, for which grants are made to recipients in each category is a primary consideration. Legislators might well have considered the difference in health requirements of the aged, blind and permanently disabled as well as their inability to care for themselves and their unemployability. Of the four groups women with children are most likely to be able to work and receive no outside assistance. The Legislature might have considered that many mothers could work and would do so with some assistance which would enable them to keep their children in the home, particularly at this time when workers are sorely needed. The Legislature might also have thought they should be encouraged “to attain * * * capability for the maximum self-supported and personal independence * * as provided in the Act authorizing the AFDC program.” “Considering the different purposes of programs in the Social Security Act and the differences in the capacity for self-help among recipients in the various categories we cannot say that the action of the Legislature in providing less assistance for AFDC recipients than for the other recipients of welfare was ‘without any reasonable basis and therefore * * * purely arbitrary. Morey v. Doud [ 354 U.S. 457 , 77 S.Ct. 1344 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1485 ] supra’,” 304 F.Supp. 1332, 1338 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[The States shall] provide that by July 1, 1969 the amounts used by the State to determine needs of individuals will have been adjusted to reflect fully changes in living costs since such amounts were established and any máximums that the State imposes on the amount of aid paid to families will have been proportionately adjusted.””
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.