Mills v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
464 F.2d 995 · 1972
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 404 (§ 204 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 425 (§ 225 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Snyder v. Harris · Federal Trade Commission v. Procter & Gamble Co. · William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t seems doubtful that, even if the district court were to deem class action designation appropriate under F. R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), aggregation of the claims of those members of the class against whom recoupment had been initiated for ‘fault’ in the receipt of overpayments would be permissible under Snyder v. Harris . . . .” 464 F.2d at 1001 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.