Lukhard v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 8 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably Bowen v. Yuckert (1987), Gardebring v. Jenkins (1988)
59 federal appellate · 8 district · 68 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
reviewedReed v. Health & Human Services (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Russello v. United States · Perrin v. United States · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Company · Eisner v. Macomber
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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Secretary of HHS became concerned that AFDC recipients who acquired a large amount of income had an incentive to spend it as rapidly as possible, in order to regain eligibility by reducing their resources to a level beneath the State’s resource limit. To solve this problem, the Secretary proposed and Congress passed an amendment to the AFDC statute. Under that amendment, AFDC recipients who receive an amount of income that exceeds the State’s standard of need are rendered ineligible for as many months as that income would last if the recipients spent an amount equal to the State’s standard of need each month.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he fact that Congress was silent in the AFDC statute but has elsewhere been explicit when it wished to exclude personal injury awards from income tends to refute rather than support a legislative intent to exclude them from AFDC computations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[G]eneral and legal sources ... commonly define `income' to mean `any money that comes in[.]'”
2 later decisions 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.