King v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “illegitimate children acknowledged by their father have a recognized position in the order of succession to their father’s intestate estates. The law, by according them a place in the order of succession, recognizes them as the children of their fathers, and we believe that this is all that is required by the Social Security Act. [T]he statute means that the Secretary is to consider as a child of an insured anyone who would be recognized as such by the indicated state law. Louisiana recognizes the rights of acknowledged illegitimates to take the intestate successions of their fathers in some circumstances and this is all that the law requires. Congress did not intend to make a child’s right to be ‘deemed dependent upon her father’ under the Social Security Act contingent upon whether [the child’s father left surviving relatives whose inheritance rights would prime the child’s rights.] Louisiana law recognizes that acknowledged illegitimate children may, under some circumstances, be accorded a place in the order of the successions of their fathers. We do not construe the Social Security Act as requiring actual inheritance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. Harris

2. “In determining whether an applicant is the child or parent of a fully or currently insured individual for purposes of this sub-chapter, the [Commissioner] shall apply such law as would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property by the courts of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled at the time such applicant files application, or, if such insured individual is dead, by the courts of the State in which he was domiciled at the time of his death, or, if such insured individual is or was not so domiciled in any State, by the courts of the District of Columbia. Applicants who according to such law would have the same status relative to taking intestate personal property as a child or parent shall be deemed such.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 959 F. Supp. 324 - Whitlock ex rel. Branch v. Chater