Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 NY2D 42 - Jones v. Berman

Jones v. Berman’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
June 1995
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 1995 · most notably Holley v. Lavine (1979), Marbley v. Bane (1995)

8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

150197519801990decided

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.

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

  1. “[Ejach public welfare district shall be responsible for the assistance and care of any person who resides or is found in its territory and who is in need of public assistance and care which he is unable to provide for himself.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “§ 350-j. Emergency assistance to needy families with children 1. . . . 2. The term “emergency assistance” means aid, care and services furnished for a period not in excess of thirty days in any twelve month period, in the case of a needy child under the age of twenty-one who is living with a person related to him by blood, marriage or adoption who is eligible to receive aid to dependent children on his behalf pursuant to this chapter and regulations of the department. 3. Emergency assistance to needy families with children shall be provided in accordance with the regulations of the department for children who are without available resources, and when such assistance is necessary to avoid destitution or to provide them with living arrangements in a home, and such destitution or such need did not arise because such children or relatives refused without good cause to accept employment or training for employment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The phraseology and requirements existent in section 350-j of our Social Services Law reflect the applicable Federal provisions (U.S.Code, tit. 42, § 606, subd. [e]; 45 C.F.R. 233.120). In section 350-j of the Social Services Law, the Legislature lists five requirements that must coexist before an applicant is entitled to emergency assistance: (1) Federal aid must be available; (2) the needy child must be under 21 years of age; (3) the child must be living with a person related to him or her by blood, marriage or adoption; (4) the assistance must be necessary to avoid destitution; and (5) the destitution must not have arisen because the child or relative refused without good cause to accept employment. The same requirements must be established under Federal law (U.S.Code, tit. 42, § 606, subd. [e]; 45 CFR 233.120).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.