Lewis v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
190 federal appellate · 131 district · 140 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 680 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1998 · most notably Schweiker v. Gray Panthers (1981), 5 Cal. 3d 730 - County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971)
190 federal appellate · 131 district · 140 state decisions — followed in 24 states
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 Dandridge v. Williams · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith · Zemel v. Rusk
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 680 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children . . must provide that the determination whether a child has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent . . . will be made only in relation to the child’s natural or adoptive parent, or in relation to a child’s stepparent who is ceremonially married to the child’s natural or adoptive parent and is legally obligated to support the child under State law of general applicability which requires stepparents to support stepchildren to the same extent that natural or adoptive parents are required to support their children. “(b) The inclusion in the family, or the presence in the home, of a ‘substitute parent’ or ‘man-in-the-house’ or any individual other than one described in paragraph (a) of this section is not an acceptable basis for a finding of ineligibility or for assuming the availability of income by the State . . . [I]n the consideration of all income and resources in establishing financial eligibility and the amount of the assistance payment, only such net income as is actually available for current use on a regular basis will be considered, and the income only of the parent described in paragraph (a) of this section will be considered available for children in the household in absence of proof of actual contributions.” (Emphasis added).”
33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall, in determining need, take into consideration any other income and resources of any child or relative claiming aid to families with dependent children, or of any other individual (living in the same home as such child and relative) whose needs the State determines should be considered in determining the need of the child or relative claiming such aid[.]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the absence of proof of actual contribution, (the state) may not consider the child's 'resources' to include either the income of a nonadopting stepfather who is not legally obligated to support the child as is a natural parent, or the income of a ('man assuming the role of spouse')-whatever the nature of his obligation to support.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rosen v. Hursh · McCoog v. Hegstrom
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.