California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 69 district · 192 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 524 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Hagans v. Lavine (1974), Califano v. Yamasaki (1979)
93 federal appellate · 69 district · 192 state decisions — followed in 26 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 Goldberg v. Kelly · Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith · National Labor Relations Board v. Gullett Gin Co.
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 524 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(a) The Secretary of Labor shall make no certification for payment to any State unless he finds that the law of such State, approved by the Secretary of Labor under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, includes provision for "(1) Such methods of administration . . . as are found by the Secretary of Labor to be reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due;"”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We conclude that the word `due' in § 303(a)(1), when construed in light of the purposes of the Act, means the time when payments are first administratively allowed as a result of a hearing of which both parties have notice and are permitted to present their respective positions; any other construction would fail to meet the objective of early substitute compensation during unemployment. Paying compensation to an unemployed worker promptly after an initial determination of eligibility accomplishes the congressional purposes of avoiding resort to welfare and stabilizing consumer demands; delaying compensation until months have elapsed defeats these purposes. It seems clear therefore that the California procedure, which suspends payments for a median period of seven weeks pending appeal, after an initial determination of eligibility has been made, is not `reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.'" Id. at 133, 91 S.Ct. at 1355 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... The purpose of the Act was to give prompt if only partial replacement of wages to the unemployed, to enable workers "to tide themselves over, until they get back to their old work or find other employment, without having to resort to relief.” Unemployment benefits provide cash to a newly unemployed worker "at a time when otherwise he would have nothing to spend,” serving to maintain the recipient at subsistence levels without the necessity of his turning to welfare or private charity. Further, providing for "security during the period following unemployment” was thought to be a means of assisting a worker to find substantially equivalent employment.... Finally, Congress viewed unemployment insurance payments as a means of exerting an influence upon the stabilization of industry.”
7 later decisions 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.