Wisdom v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate ·

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

1. “1. The definition of “child” includes a “fetus,” an “unborn human being,” and an “unborn infant.” 2. The medical evidence clearly indicated that inclusion of the unborn child as a “dependent child” is consistent with the purposes of the Act. 3. No credible argument can be advanced that Congress intended to exclude an unborn child from coverage of the Act. An unborn child is not any less “needy” or “dependent” than a child who has been born. 4. IIEW regulations have permitted payments to unborn children; the optional features of the administrative regulations, however, are violative of the provisions of the Act. 5. Both houses of the 92nd Congress proposed amendments to the Act which would have excluded unborn children, but the amendments were not enacted. 6. In the absence of express congressional authorization, a state policy that excludes persons eligible for assistance under federal standards is in conflict with the Act and is invalid under the Supremacy Clause. 372 F.Supp. 1190 , 1192 (D. Conn.1974).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wisdom v. Norton