Walters v. Weiss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 657(a) reflects some congressional intent to benefit custodial parents,” it determined”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arrington v. Helms · Kimberly Arrington v. Bill Fuller

2. “First, Congress must have intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the right assertedly protected by the statute is not so “vague and amorphous” that its enforcement would strain judicial competence. Third, the statute must unambiguously impose a binding obligation on the States. In other words, the provision giving rise to the asserted right must be couched in mandatory, rather than prec-atory terms.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hughlett v. Romer-Sensky

3. “does not create an individual right to distribution in strict compliance with its terms.” Walters v. Weiss, 392 F.3d 306 , 313 (8th Cir.2004). More recently, in Arrington v. Helms, 438 F.3d 1336 , 1347 (11th Cir.2006), the Eleventh Circuit concluded that 42 U.S.C. § 657”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cuvillier v. Taylor