Wojchowski v. Daines’s Empirical Analysis
498 F.3d 99 · 2007
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2024
11 federal appellate · 1 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 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396R (§ 1924 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams · Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board · Dole v. United Steelworkers · McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While as a general rule, one panel of this Court cannot overrule a prior decision of another panel[,] ... an exception to this general rule arises where there has been an intervening Supreme Court decision that casts doubt on our controlling precedent. Moreover, the intervening decision need not address the precise issue already decided by our Court. We agree with the District Court that our holding in [our earlier case] was based on an interpretation of the Social Security Act’s antiat- tachment provision that is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's reading of [the statutory provision at .issue in a later case]. We therefore conclude that (1) [our prior opinion]'s holding concerning the scope of [the statutory provision at issue] is no longer good law and (2) under [the Supreme Court's opinion], New York’s income-first policy as applied to Social Security benefits does not violate [the provision].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Ejusdem generis is the statutory canon that where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.” Wojchowski v. Daines, 498 F.3d 99 , 108 n. 8 (2d Cir.2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Ejusdem generis does not squarely apply to § 92.25-15, since the regulation’s general words (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"other legal process" should be understood to be process much like the processes of execution, levy, attachment, and garnishment, and at a minimum, would seem to require utilization of some judicial or quasi-judicial mechanism, though not necessarily an elaborate one, by which control over property passes from one person to another in order to discharge or secure discharge of an allegedly existing or anticipated liability.”
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.