Baxter v. Minter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “such destitution or need for living arrangements did not arise because such child or relative refused without good cause to accept employment or training for employment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 400 F. Supp. 1309 - Williams v. Wohlgemuth · Venus Mandley v. James L. Trainor

2. “Finally, a new program optional with the States would authorize dollar-for-dollar Federal matching to provide temporary assistance to meet the great variety of situations faced by needy children in families with emergencies. ****** The Committee understands that the process of determining AFDC eligibility and authorizing payments frequently precludes the meeting of emergency needs when a crisis occurs. In the event of eviction, or when utilities are turned off, or when an alcoholic parent leaves children without food, immediate action is necessary. It frequently is unavailable under State programs today. ****** The eligible families involved are those with children under 21 who either are, or have recently been, living with close relatives. The families do not have to be receiving, or eligible upon application to receive, AFDC (although they are generally of the same type), but they must be without any available resources and the payment or service must be necessary in order to meet an immediate need that would not otherwise be met. Assistance might be in any form— money, medical aid, payment of rent or utilities, orders from food or clothing stores, etc. The provision is broad enough that emergencies can be met in migrant families as well as those meeting residence requirements of the State’s AFDC program. Its utilization would be optional with the States. ****** The committee recognizes that the bill would require the States to take on new and expensive tasks. Yet, if the j”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 400 F. Supp. 1309 - Williams v. Wohlgemuth

3. “Both AFDC and EA [emergency assistance] are designed to aid needy families with children under a certain age. The enabling legislation for EA is in fact found in the AFDC definitions section of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § 606 . The term “emergency assistance to needy families with children” is defined by reference to the more detailed definition sections of the AFDC law. See 42 U. S.C. § 606(e); 42 U.S.C. § 606 (a)(1).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 400 F. Supp. 1309 - Williams v. Wohlgemuth