Allen v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 1990 · most notably Bridges v. Nicely (1985), Cox v. Schweiker (1982)
6 federal appellate · 6 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. § 2403 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Frontiero v. Richardson · United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno · Trimble v. Gordon · Mathews v. Lucas
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * * * * Generally speaking, those children who meet the age, filing and non-marriage requirements of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402 (d)(1), and who have not been legally adopted by another, 42 U.S.C. § 402 (d)(3)(B), are eligible for benefits if they were dependent upon the wage earner at the time of his death. 42 U.S.C. § 402 (d)(l)(C)(ii). A child is deemed dependent if he was (1) living with or supported by the wage earner at the time of his death, or (2) is the legitimate child of the wage earner. 42 U.S.C. § 402 (d)(3). If a child is illegitimate, he may nonetheless be deemed legitimate for purposes of the Act (and hence deemed dependent and thus entitled to benefits) if he can make one of four showings: 1) That the infant would be entitled to inherit personal property from the deceased wage earner under the law that would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property by the courts of the wage earner’s state of domicile at death, 4 2) That the deceased wage earner and the other parent of the infant went through a marriage ceremony rendered invalid by some legal insufficiency, 3) That the deceased wage earner had a) acknowledged the infant claimant in writing as his or her son or daughter or b) been decreed by a court to be the claimant’s parent, or c) been ordered by a court to support the claimant on the basis of parenthood, 6”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2)(A) In determining whether an applicant is the child or parent of a fully or currently insured individual for purposes of this subchapter, the Secretary shall apply such law as would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property by the courts of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled at the time such applicant files application, or, if such insured individual is dead, by the courts of the State in which he was domiciled at the time of his death, or, if such insured individual is or was not so domiciled in any State, by the courts of the District of Columbia. Applicants who according to such law would have the same status relative to taking intestate personal property as a child or parent shall be deemed such.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The wage earner, Walter Williams, died on September 15, 1974, in South Carolina where he was buried. (2) Sharon M. Montgomery is unmarried and was not age 18 at the time the application for child’s insurance benefits was filed [on September 30,1974]. (3) Sharon M. Montgomery, the daughter of Edna Lee (Hill) Featherstone, was not living with Walter Williams at the time of his death on September 15, 1974, nor was he contributing to her support at that time. (4) Walter Williams and Edna Lee (Hill) Featherstone were not married. (5) Walter Williams was domiciled in South Carolina and under South Carolina intestacy laws an illegitimate child cannot inherit from his estate. Sharon M. Montgomery is not entitled to benefits. (6) Walter Williams never acknowledged in writing that he was the father of Sharon M. Montgomery. (7) There was no court child support order nor paternity petition naming Walter Williams as the father or the supporter of Sharon M. Montgomery. (8) Sharon M. Montgomery is not the child of Walter Williams, within the meaning of the Social Security Act, as amended. 2”
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.