Harry Like v. Proctor N. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
448 F.2d 798 · 1971
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 10 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably Paxton v. Union National Bank (1982), Marks v. C.P. Chemical Co. (1987)
33 federal appellate · 10 district · 14 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
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Goldberg v. Kelly · Monroe v. Pape · Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o the effect that applications of members of the classes here involved for welfare benefits, must be acted upon and the first payment made to eligible applicants within thirty days of the filing of the application and that eligible applicants whose claims have not been passed upon within thirty days are entitled to have retroactive benefits from the thirty-first day following the filing of their applications, subject, however, to a provision that the foregoing shall not apply to instances where the state establishes that the delay is excused or justified by the provisions of the Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, and particularly Part IV, § 2300(b)(6). [Like v. Carter, 353 F. Supp. at 405-406 .].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(f)actual differences are not fatal (to maintenance of a class action) if common questions of law exist.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coley v. Clinton · Coley v. Clinton“It is established that the need of eligible welfare applicants for prompt relief is urgent and great, and that eligible applicants are entitled to prompt relief as a matter of right. 448 F.2d at 804 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cornelius v. Minter
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.