McLaughlin v. Wohlgemuth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. “State plan requirement. A State plan under title IV-A of the Social Security Act 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, or (if the State plan includes such cases) the unemployment of his father, will be made only in relation to the 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. Under this requirement, 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 this paragraph is not an acceptable basis for a finding of ineligibility or for assuming the availability of income by the State. 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 the first sentence of this paragraph will be considered available for children in the household in the absence of proof of actual contributions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 421 F. Supp. 1337 - Gurley v. Wohlgemuth

2. ““3234.6 Income from Legally Responsible Relatives Living with the Client . “The applicant for or recipient of assistance is considered to be living with his spouse, parent or child if he and the relatives occupy a common dwelling unit. If the spouse/parent is not estranged or legally separated from the applicant or recipient and he is residing elsewhere for purposes such as employment, hospitalization, institutionalization or the like, the relative is regarded to be living with the applicant or recipient. “Under the provisions of this section the amount of income available to the applicant or recipient is determined under the appropriate method described below.” “3234.61 Spouse and Parent of Minor Child “The income considered available to the dependent(s) applying for or receiving assistance is arrived at by deducting from the income of the spouse/parent, allowances for his living expenses. Use the method described below which is applicable to the situations. “b. For spouse/parent absent because of employment, hospitalization, institutionalization and the like; deduct the actual reasonable expenses living away from home from the net income determined by regulations in 3234.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McLaughlin v. Wohlgemuth

3. ““ . . . §§ 3234.6 and 3234.61 provide for a conclusive presumption that the income of a legally responsible relative is available to dependents living in the same assistance unit. The legally responsible relative is considered to be living with the AFDC applicant ‘if he and the relative occupy a common dwelling,’ even if that relative is residing elsewhere for purposes such as employment, hospitalization, or institutionalization.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McLaughlin v. Wohlgemuth