Califano v. Boles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 15 district · 70 state decisions

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

1. “[t]he process of categorization presents the difficulties inherent in any line-drawing exercise where the draftsman confronts a universe of potential beneficiaries with different histories and distinct needs. He strives for a level of generality that is administratively practicable with full appreciation that the included class has members whose `needs' upon a statutorily defined occurrence may not be as marked as those of isolated individuals outside the classification. `General rules are essential if a fund of this magnitude is to be administered with a modicum of efficiency, even though such rules inevitably produce seemingly arbitrary consequences in some individual cases.' A process of case-by-case adjudication that would provide a `perfect fit' in theory would increase administrative expenses to a degree that benefit levels would probably be reduced, precluding a perfect fit in fact.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edelman v. Shalala · Allen v. Hettleman

2. “Again, the Court has been sensitive to the special difficulties presented by the mass administration of the Social Security system. After the legislative task of classification is completed, the administrative goal is accuracy and promptness in the actual allocation of benefits pursuant to those classifications. The magnitude of that task is not amenable to the full trappings of the adversary process lest again benefit levels be threatened by the cost of administration. Fairness can best be assured by Congress and the Social Security Administration, through sound managerial techniques and quality control designed to achieve an acceptable rate of error. (Citations Omitted).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 30 soc.sec.rep.ser. 128, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15523a in Re Petition of Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services. William Wilkerson, Robert J. Gardner and William E. Smith, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Honorable John B. Hannum, Nominal William Wilkerson, Robert J. Gardner and William E. Smith, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, (Two Cases) William Wilkerson, Robert J. Gardner and William E. Smith, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · 641 F. Supp. 1046 - Salling v. Bowen

3. “A process of case-by-case adjudication that would provide a 'perfect fit' in theory would increase administrative expenses to a degree that benefit levels would probably be reduced, precluding a perfect fit in fact.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 30 soc.sec.rep.ser. 128, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15523a in Re Petition of Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services. William Wilkerson, Robert J. Gardner and William E. Smith, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Honorable John B. Hannum, Nominal William Wilkerson, Robert J. Gardner and William E. Smith, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, (Two Cases) William Wilkerson, Robert J. Gardner and William E. Smith, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · Sullivan v. W Sullivan