Kaisa v. Chang’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hagans v. Lavine · King v. Smith · Lewis v. Martin · 5 Cal. 3d 730 - County of Alameda v. Carleson · Sykes v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * [I]n establishing financial eligibility and the amount of the assistance payment: (o,) All income and resources, after policies governing the allowable reserve, disregard or setting aside of income and resources have been applied, will be considered in relation to the State’s standard of assistance, and will first be applied to maintenance costs; * * * (c) only such net income as is actually available for current use on a regular basis will be considered, and only currently available resources will be considered-, and (d) income and resources will be reasonably evaluated.” (Italics supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“all former and/or present recipients of Aid To Families With Dependent Children in the State of Hawaii, who, since September 23, 1974, have been required to forfeit all or part of their federal and/or State income tax refunds to Defendants or in lieu thereof, have had their regular public assistance grant reduced, suspended or terminated due to their receipt of such income tax refund but does not include those persons, who obtained refunds based on a fraudulent basis or by falsely claiming a lesser or greater exemption.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Montalvo v. Chang“all persons similarly situated who are needy AFDC family units who have assigned their child support payments to the Department of Social Services and Housing, State of Hawaii, and who have received up to FIVE DOLLARS ($5.00) less per AFDC child in their total monthly income as a result of this assignment to and collection by Defendants of their child support payments pursuant to present statutory and regulatory provisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Montalvo v. Chang
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.