Chambers v. Klein’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2009
2 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 1102 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 Terry v. Ohio · Conley v. Gibson · Katz v. United States · Goldberg v. Kelly · Roe v. Wade
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) (1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State, or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number. (2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to— (A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute (b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That . . . a parent or relative may also receive an AFDC grant does not detract from the person whom the AFDC program was designed to aid, namely, the dependent child.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“include the caretaker relative, the children, and any other individual whose needs are considered in determining the amount of assistance.”
2 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.