Blum v. Bacon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

322 federal appellate · 63 district · 53 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 783 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the interpretation of an agency charged with the administration of a statute is entitled to substantial deference.”

   17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Public Service Commission of State of New York v. Mid-Louisiana Gas Company Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Inc · Aluminum Co. of America v. Central Lincoln Peoples' Utility District

2. “It is well accepted ... that without filing a cross-appeal or cross-petition, an appellee may rely upon any matter appearing in the record in support of the judgment below.”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fischer v. NWA, Inc. · Burton Blistein v. St. John's College

3. “Under the current provision of Federal law, some States have enacted programs which contain a cutoff point on income which determines the financial eligibility of the individual. Thus, an individual with an income just under the specified limit may qualify for all of the aid provided under the State plan. Individuals, however, whose income exceeds the limitation adopted by the State are found ineligible for the medical assistance provided under the State plan even though the excess of the individual's income may be small when compared with the cost of the medical care needed. In order that all States shall be flexible in the consideration of an individual’s income, the committee bill requires that the State’s standards for determining eligibility for and extent of medical assistance shall take into account, except to the extent prescribed by the Secretary, the cost— whether in the form of insurance premiums or otherwise — incurred for medical care or any other type of remedial care recognized under State law. Thus, before an individual is found ineligible for all or part of the cost of his medical needs, the State must be sure that the income of the individual has been measured in terms of both the State’s allowance for basic maintenance needs and the cost of the medical care he requires. The State may require the use of all the excess income of the individual toward his medical expenses, or some proportion of that amount. In no event, however, with respect to either this pro”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hogan v. Heckler