Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 443 U.S. 76 - Califano v. Westcott

Califano v. Westcott’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

488
cited by 488 later decisions
51
cited 51 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

169 federal appellate · 25 district · 110 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 488 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably United States v. Booker (2004), California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra (1987)

169 federal appellate · 25 district · 110 state decisions — followed in 21 states

2490197919801990200020102020decided

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 · 42 U.S.C. § 1303 (§ 1103 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 606 (§ 406 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 607 (§ 407 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Taylor v. Louisiana · Craig v. Boren · Rosado v. Wyman

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

  1. ““[wjhere a statute is defective because of under-inclusion,” ... “there exist two remedial alternatives: a court may either declare [the statute] a nullity and order that its benefits not extend to the class that the legislature intended to benefit, or it may extend the coverage of the statute to include those who are aggrieved by the exclusion.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the touchstone for any decision about remedy is legislative intent, for a court cannot 'use its remedial powers to circumvent the intent of the legislature.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““When a statute is defective because of underinclusion, ... there exist two remedial alternatives: a court may either declare [the statute] a nullity and order its benefits not extend to the class that the legislature intended to benefit, or it may extend the coverage of the statute to include those who are aggrieved by the exclusion.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.