Bolling v. Howland’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 1990
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 652 (§ 452 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 660 (§ 460 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The Secretary shall establish, within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare a separate organization unit, under the direction of a designee of the Secretary, * * * who shall— (8) receive applications from States for permission to utilize the courts of the United States to enforce court orders for support against absent parents and, upon a finding that (A) another State has not undertaken to enforce the court order of the originating State against the absent parent within a reasonable time, and (B) that utilization of the Federal courts is the only reasonable method of enforcing such order, approve such applications; # # * * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without regard to any amount in controversy, to hear and determine any civil action certified by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under section 652(a)(8) of this title. A civil action under this section may be brought in any judicial district in which the claim arose, the plaintiff resides, or the defendant resides.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mr. ECKHARDT. ... In Texas, we do not have garnishment of wages, so this would be ingraining the Federal law on existing State law. Under circumstances like that I would think the case would be removable to the Federal court as a matter of right. Is that what the gentleman feels would result? Can these cases ail be removed to Federal courts. Mr. ULLMAN. No. The garnishment provision places the U.S. Government in the same position as a private employer. Nonsupport cases can be certified to the Federal courts only by the Secretary of HEW who must find that use of the Federal courts is the only reasonable way to enforce a court order. In the situation the gentleman cites, there would be no court order on which to base such a finding. [Bolling v. Howland, 398 F.Supp. 1313 , 1316 (M.D. Tenn. 1975), quoting 120 Cong.Rec. H12,585-12,587 (daily ed. Dec. 20, 1974) (emphasis is original).]”
1 later decision 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.