Aitchison v. Berger’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1995 · most notably Schweiker v. Hogan (1982), Friedman v. Berger (1976)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Shapiro v. Thompson · Hagans v. Lavine · Rosado v. Wyman · Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A State plan for medical assistance must— (10) provide— (C) if medical assistance is included for any group of individuals who are [not recipients of, e. g., AFDC or SSI] and who do not meet the income and resources requirements of the appropriate State plan, or the supplemental security income program, . .. (i) for making medical assistance available to all individuals who would, except for income and resources, be eligible for aid or assistance under any such State plan or to have paid with respect to them [SSI], and who have insufficient (as determined in accordance with comparable standards) income and resources to meet the costs of necessary medical and remedial care and services, ... (emphasis supplied).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In no event . . . may a State require the use of income or resources which would bring the individual’s income below the amount established as the test of eligibility under the State plan. Such action would reduce the individual below the level determined by the State as necessary for his maintenance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“With respect to the medically needy, the State plan must: (1) Provide levels of income and resources for maintenance, in total dollar amounts, as a basis for establishing financial eligibility for medical assistance. Under this requirement: (ii) . . . the income levels for maintenance must be, as a minimum, at the higher of the levels of the payment standards generally used as a measure of financial eligibility in the money payment programs, that is: (B) In the case of individuals, or families (including families with children) of two persons, at the higher of: (2) The highest level of payment which is generally available to individuals in any of the three groups (aged, blind and disabled) who are (or would be, except for income) eligible for benefits under title XIX; (2) Provide that there will be a flexible measurement of available income which will be applied in the following order of priority: (i) First, for maintenance, so that any income in an amount at or below the established level will be protected for maintenance (ii) Next, income will be applied to costs incurred for medical insurance premiums ., for any copayments or deductibles ., and for necessary medical or remedial care recognized under State law and not encompassed within the State plan for medical assistance. . (iii) All of the remaining excess income and medical resources in the form of insurance or other entitlement will be applied to costs of medical assistance included in the State plan. . As Judge Frank”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Friedman v. Berger
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.