Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 392 U.S. 309 - King v. Smith

King v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

2,876
cited by 2,876 later decisions
136
cited 136 times by the Supreme Court
40
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

722 federal appellate · 471 district · 579 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,876 later decisions (136 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2020 · most notably Edelman v. Jordan (1974), Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)

722 federal appellate · 471 district · 579 state decisions — followed in 40 states

1.6k01968197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Monroe v. Pape · McNeese v. Board of Education for Community Unit School District 187 Cahokia · Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co. · Levy v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Charity Hospital

Cited together with Rosado v. Wyman · Dandridge v. Williams · Townsend v. Swank · Lewis v. Martin · Goldberg v. Kelly

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 2,876 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “based on a scheme of cooperative federalism,”
    57 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “There is of course no question that the Federal Government, unless barred by some controlling constitutional prohibition, may impose the terms and conditions upon which its money allotments to the States shall be disbursed, and that any state law or regulation inconsistent with such federal terms and conditions is to that extent invalid.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “There is no question that States have considerable latitude in allocating their AFDC resources, since each State is free to set its own standard of need and to determine the level of benefits by the amount of funds it devotes to the program.”
    13 later decisions 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.