Vialpando v. Shea’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2006
3 district · 3 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
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Illinois v. Allen · Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith · Jefferson v. Hackney
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When considering the 1962 amendment which added the employment expense provision, Congress specifically recognized that 'all income of recipients ... is taken into account ... in determining need.’ S.Rep.No. 1589, 87 Cong., 2d Sess., 1962 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 1943, 1959 (emphasis added). Thus Congress intended that all employment expenses also be considered. See 45 C.F.R. § 233.20 (a)(7)(i).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“An AFDC grant is computed by comparing a family’s income and resources to a standard of need statistically determined by the state. The family income used in this comparison is gross family income less certain exclusions mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(7), an employment expense provision, and 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(8), an income disregard provision.”
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.