Jordan v. Weaver’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 985 · 1973
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1999 · most notably Edelman v. Jordan (1974), Green v. Mansour (1986)
50 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 1102 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 43 U.S.C. § 1331 (Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006)
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Goldberg v. Kelly · Dandridge v. Williams · Shapiro v. Thompson · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Certainly we are not to be understood as meaning that retrospective relief is always or even generally an appropriate remedy. However, the spectre of a state, perhaps calculatingly, defying federal law and thereby depriving welfare recipients of the financial assistance Congress thought it was giving them convinces us that Congress fully meant to condition the grant of federal funds on the states’ being susceptible to a federal court suit to obtain retrospective relief. Simply put, we think it unreasonable to presume that Congress would have intended assistance to be given to welfare recipients in conformity with federal law and at the same time deprive them the possibility of gaining an effective remedy. We cannot conceive that Illinois could legitimately expect to be able to participate in the federal program, receive federal funds in consideration for its agreement to channel them, together with state funds, to beneficiaries in compliance with federal law, and invariably retain the savings accruing through that illegality. Thus as a matter of federal law Illinois has constructively consented to this suit. ... (citing cases)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Owens v. Roberts“The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, respectively, shall make and publish such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with which each is charged under this chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.