Brown v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Goldberg v. Kelly · Bell v. Hood · Flower v. United States · Carter v. Seamans
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The defendant’s own regulations, as set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.1417 (b) and (c) would appear to meet the Goldberg standards and should be applied to plaintiffs and the members of their class before their benefits may be terminated. Generally, these regulations allow the calling of witnesses, a review of the record, the subpoenaing and cross-examination of adverse witnesses and representation by counsel. Although the thirty days written notice requirement would appear appropriate, this Court would suggest that the notice should contain a brief statement of the reasons for the initial determination of ineligibility so that the individual involved may be better able to determine whether to seek reconsideration and to prepare for a subsequent hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In effect, the determination of an individual’s ineligibility under SSI produces the same ‘termination’ as did the caseworker’s evaluation of ineligibility in Goldberg. As a result of Congressional action, plaintiffs were entitled to and did receive payments early in 1974 pending a decision concerning their eligibility. Before the Secretary acted, plaintiffs had a legislatively created right to these benefits.” Brown v. Weinberger, 382 F. Supp. 1092,1097 (D.Md.1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Thus the crucial factor in this context ... is that termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits.” Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. at 264 , 90 S.Ct. at 1018 (original emphasis).”
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.