Bryant v. Carleson’s Empirical Analysis
444 F.2d 353 · 1971
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Hagans v. Lavine (1974), Landy v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1973)
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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. § 1337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Dandridge v. Williams · Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith · Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“affect [the court's] consideration of the various issues presented,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as that term is used in section 402(a) (23), on January 1, 1962, pursuant to SB 568, Cal.Stats.1961, ch. 1396, now Welfare and Institutions Code, Sec. 11450(a). 5 By letter dated June 21, 1971, the Administrator of the Social and Rehabilitation Service of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), advised all interested parties that the amendment of the state plan, accomplished by the promulgation of EAS Sec. 44-313”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bryant v. Carleson“Here we are dealing only with the question of increased dollar máximums. We do not consider whether the will of Congress regarding the requirement of adjusted need determination, is presently being frustrated or affectuated under California’s state plan.”
1 later decision 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.