Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 U.S. 181 - Mathews v. De Castro

Mathews v. De Castro’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

787
cited by 787 later decisions
49
cited 49 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

186 federal appellate · 87 district · 164 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 787 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), Schweiker v. Wilson (1981)

186 federal appellate · 87 district · 164 state decisions — followed in 28 states

3180197619801990200020102020decided

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. § 1252 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Weinberger v. Salfi · Jefferson v. Hackney · Mathews v. Lucas · Helvering v. Davis

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 787 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “So long as its judgments are rational, and not invidious, the legislature's efforts to tackle the problems of the poor and the needy are not subject to a constitutional straitjacket.”
    33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “encompasses equal protection principles.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The old-age and disability insurance aspects of the Social Security system do not purport to be general public assistance laws that simply pay money to those who need it most. That was not the predominant purpose of these benefit provisions when they were enacted or when they were amended. Rather, the primary objective was to provide workers and their families with basic protection against hardships created by the loss of earnings due to illness or old age.””
    4 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.