Morales v. Minter’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 1990
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1201 (§ 1001 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1351 (§ 1401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382E (§ 1616 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · Monroe v. Pape · Gault · Stanley v. Illinois · Dandridge v. Williams
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Maryland welfare scheme in Dandridge was imperfect, but at least it provided some benefits to those who were eligible for AFDC. 18 In contrast, the statute before us today categorically denies any aid to otherwise eligible residents of Massachusetts solely because of their age which, we repeat, is irrelevant to need. * * * [Emphases in original.] 18 Before the Court reached the equal protection issue, it discussed whether Maryland’s grant system violated § 402(a)(10) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(10). In holding that it did not, the Court stated that “[s]o long as some aid is provided to all eligible families and all eligible children, the statute itself is not violated.” Dandridge v. Williams, supra, 397 U.S. at 481 , 90 S.Ct. at 1159 . * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Allen v. Hettleman““The stated purpose of the GR program is to aid all residents of Massachusetts when they are in need. . . . Despite this, persons ... 65 [and over] are denied GR assistance even if their need is as substantial as those declared eligible for GR. ... In other words, persons similarly situated are denied assistance solely because of their age. Yet, we think it evident that need is a common denominator that cannot be classified according to age. Therefore, the classification ... is based upon a criterion that bears no relation to the legislative purpose of the GR program . . . .” 393 F.Supp. at 100 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The policy and practice of the defendants ... discriminates against minors solely on the basis of their age in violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.