Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 FSUPP 670 - Ciampa v. Schweiker

Ciampa v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
March 1984
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382E (§ 1616 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 415 (§ 215 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington

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

  1. ““protect individuals * * * by providing that no recipient of Federal benefits or State supplementary payments under the SSI program would lose eligibility for medicaid as the result of the operation of the cost-of-living benefit increase provision in Title II [OASDI]. The purpose of the Amendment is to insure that an increase intended to benefit the aged and disabled would not have inadvertent harmful effects.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Lynch v. Rank
  2. “such individual would be (or could become) eligible”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Ciampa v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
  3. “) and Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Ciampa v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

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.