Scott v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Child with income paid in his behalf to the client. Income in this instance will refer to allotments, benefits, awards, court orders, trust fund payments, or the like, which are paid to the client in behalf of a child living with the client. “Child” will refer to either a natural or adopted child .under 21 years of age. (1) Income legally restricted to the use of the child. Some kinds of payments in this category will be legally restricted to the use of the child and are disregarded in determining eligibility of the assistance unit. ESDI Veteran’s benefits paid in behalf of a child are always legally, restricted to the use of the child. Court orders specifying support for the child .or .children are legally restricted ,to use of the named persons. . . . The income will be considered available to meet his individual need and will be disregarded in determining the eligibility of the assistance unit, unless the person who is the payment name wants the child included in the grant. . . . (2) Income not legally restricted to use of the child. Income which is not legally restricted to •the use of the child must be considered available to the members of the assistance unit. . . . (Emphasis in original.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare