Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 332 FSUPP 1175 - Charleston v. Wohlgemuth

Charleston v. Wohlgemuth’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
5
states following
December 1991
most recently cited

1 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 1991

1 district · 14 state decisions

140197119801990decided

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 12 U.S.C. § 1715Z · 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. § 606 (§ 406 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Goldberg v. Kelly · Dandridge v. Williams · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Boddie v. Connecticut

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) the ... personal property of any person shall be liable for the expenses of his support, maintenance, [and] assistance ... incurred by any public body or public agency, ... if a right or cause of action existed during the time such expenses were incurred from which the ownership of such property resulted. Any public body or agency may sue the owner of such property for moneys so expended.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the area of economics and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘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 . ‘The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.’ Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 69-70 , 33 S.Ct. 441, 443 , 57 L.Ed. 730 . ‘A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.’ McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426 , 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 . (Emphasis in original.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “There are two closely related reasons for reimbursement. The first rests on the basic principle that public assistance supplements resources and that whenever assistance is granted in lieu of the utilization of resources, the assistance should be repaid wherever these resources become available. The second reason relates to the financing of the program. Reimbursement results in a recovery of money that is then available for redistribution as assistance, thereby reducing to this extent the need for additional tax revenues.”
    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.