427 F. Supp. 834 - Green v. Philbrook’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 42 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 1102 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 451 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hagans v. Lavine · King v. Smith · Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham · New York State Department of Social Services v. Dublino · Philbrook v. Glodgett
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]ffective October 21, 1976, Congress amended federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (a), by deleting the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement where the action is brought against the United States, its agencies, or any officer or employee thereof acting in his official capacity. Pub.L.No. 94-574, § 2 (Oct. 21, 1976). The amendment is remedial in nature, see H.R.Rep. No. 1656, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 6121, and it is intended to fill what has been termed “an unfortunate gap in the statutory jurisdiction of the federal courts,” Wolff v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, 372 F.2d 817, 826 (2d Cir. 1967). Thus, we think it proper to apply the amendment retroactively to grant jurisdiction over the defendant Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare even if there was no jurisdiction initially. Larkin v. Saffarans, 15 F. 147 (C.C.W.D.Tenn.1883). In any event, were we to dismiss against the federal defendant now, the plaintiffs would be able to renew their action by refiling under the amended statute. The Court can envision no logical reason to require such a Sisyphean process.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“with 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(25) and therefore invalid as not authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1302 . The district court's analysis of the question was correct; its conclusion was not. 13”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i)t would be illogical . . . to interpret the identical words, when used in § 602(a)(25), in a fashion different from that employed in its sister statute § 602(a)(26).”
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.