Jenkins v. Georges’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 6 state decisions

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.

1. “The Commonwealth attempts to justify the reduced allowance schedule on the ground that people who live together share expenses for common items such as shelter, food and utilities. Because the non-legally responsible adult who is not receiving assistance contributes to the defendant child’s support in the form of a share of these fixed overhead expenses, the child may reasonably be awarded a reduced payment. The fault we find with the Commonwealth’s position is that it assumes, in every case, without investigation, the availability of the non-recipient’s resources for the child. . . . [WJhether the non-recipient can or does actually contribute to the child’s support is immaterial under the Pennsylvania schema. Its regulations convert a factual possibility into an assumption of law. This it may not do.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 421 F. Supp. 1337 - Gurley v. Wohlgemuth

2. “Whether the “substitute parent” must rent or build additional space, or incur increased utility expenses, or subject the premises to greater deterioration and additional repairs to accommodate the child is not open to factual inquiry. In short, whether the non-recipient can or does actually contribute to the child’s support is immaterial under the Pennsylvania schema. Its regulations convert a factual possibility into an assumption of law. This it may not do.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boucher v. Minter