Rodriguez v. Vowell’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 622 · 1973
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 1998 · most notably Alabama Nursing Home Ass'n v. Harris (1980), 87 Wash. 2d 706 - Anderson v. Morris (1976)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 606 (§ 406 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith · Townsend v. Swank · Lewis v. Martin
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he plain language of the Social Security Act, its legislative history, and the relevant decisional precedent make clear that the needs of the caretaker relative, as well as those of the dependent child are to be considered in deciding if a family is eligible for an AFDC grant. Recognizing the inseparability of the needs of the child from the needs of the relative with whom the child is living, § 401 of the Act [ 42 U.S.C. § 601 ] emphasizes that the purpose of the AFDC program is to help the child by preserving and strengthening the family entity. Congress appreciated that granting aid to the dependent child alone would not fully meet the child's need for care and therefore required that the caretaker be a relative of a specified degree so that the caretaker would have a natural concern for the child's welfare . . . Thus, in measuring the CT Page 8479 need, the need of the family unit is the question, not the need of the child alone; for the goal of strengthening the family entity can only be achieved if the needs of the caretaker relative are included in determining eligibility.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . .in establishing financial eligibility and the amount of assistance payment: only such net income as is actually available for current use on a regular basis will be considered, and only currently available resources will be considered;” (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“". . . .Recognizing the inseparability of the needs of the child from the needs of the relative with whom the child is living, 401 of the Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 601 ) emphasizes that the purpose of the AFDC program is to help the child by preserving and strengthening the family entity. Congress appreciated that granting aid to the dependent child alone would not fully meet the child's need for care and therefore required that the caretaker be a relative of a specified degree so that the caretaker would have a natural concern for the child's welfare. Thus, in measuring need, the need of the family unit is the question, not the need of the child alone; . . .”
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.