369 F. Supp. 204 - Carver v. Hooker’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 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 Baker v. Carr · Roe v. Wade · Ashe v. Swenson · Dandridge v. Williams · Shapiro v. Thompson
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In title Y it is proposed that aid be given the states for other services very essential to the security of children. The first of these is aid for maternity and infancy welfare . . . The need for such services has increased with the depression, and the fact that the maternal mortality rate in this country is much higher than in nearly all other progressive countries is certainly not to our credit.” Committee on Ways and Means Report, H.R.Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 12 (1935).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . .a conflict existed because the Congressional purpose underlying the statute was to assist all needy children who met the federal standards of eligibility. By imposing a more restrictive standard [the State] prevented some families, eligible under the federal statute, from receiving benefits. This, the Court determined, violated the broad purpose of the Social Security Act.” 330 F.Supp.'at 570.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]t least in the absence of congressional authorization for the exclusion clearly evidenced from the Social Security Act or its legislative history, a state eligibility standard that excludes persons eligible for assistance under federal AFDC standards violates the Social Security Act and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baxter v. Minter
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.