Roselli v. Affleck’s Empirical Analysis
508 F.2d 1277 · 1974
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 1996 · most notably Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology (1976), United Steelworkers of America v. Textron, Inc. (1987)
26 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith · Townsend v. Swank · Lewis v. Martin · Carleson v. Remillard
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendant takes exception to the court’s requirement that the state use current shelter figures in computing the standard of need incorporated in the flat grant. He correctly avers that § 602(a)(23) imposes no update requirement for cost of living increases after July 1, 1969, and that the courts have refused to characterize inflation as an element of the prior standard of need for which provision must be made after the implementation of a flat grant. See, e. g., New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill, [ 483 F.2d 723 (3 Cir. 1973)] supra. However, in adopting a policy of meeting housing needs fully, the state in effect .imposed an update requirement upon itself. In a period of rising shelter costs it is obvious that the calculation of the flat grant on the basis of year-old budgeted amounts not adequate at the time, much less currently, will result in an obscuring and diminution of the state’s actual need standard. Though it need not recognize inflation after the institution of the flat grant, the state must compute the standard of need on the basis of the realities at the time of implementation." (Footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roselli v. Affleck“It is true, that this action does not directly challenge the legality of the area supervisors’ practice, but the state ought not to be allowed to premise the calculation of the flat grant on an unlawful practice which conflicts with express state policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roselli v. Affleck“A state may choose to lower the level of benefits actually paid to welfare clients but it may not lower or obscure its standard of need in such a way as to disguise the step and avoid public scrutiny.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Everett v. Schramm
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.