De Castro v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Shapiro v. Thompson · Weinberger v. Salfi · Sosna v. Iowa
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has attained age 62 or (in the case of a wife ) has in her care (individually or jointly with (her husband)) at the time of filing such application a child entitled to a child's insurance benefit . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mathews v. De Castro“there is no rational basis for concluding that a married wife having a dependent child in her care has a greater economic need than a divorced wife caring for such a child.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mathews v. De Castro“a woman divorced from an individual, but only if she had been married to such individual for a period of 20 years immediately before the date the divorce became effective.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mathews v. De Castro
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.