Anderson v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably City of Chicago v. Morales (1999), Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore. (1995)
31 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedEdwards v. Healy (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · United States v. Salerno · King v. Smith · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For the purpose of encouraging the care of dependent children in their own homes or in the homes of relatives by enabling each State to furnish financial assistance and rehabilitation and other services, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to needy dependent children and the parents or relatives with whom they are living to help maintain and strengthen family life and to help such parents or relatives to attain or retain capability for the maximum self-support and personal independence consistent with the maintenance of continuing parental care and protection, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this part....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maynard v. Williams“As we examine the regulations, we keep in mind that in AFDC cases, 'the starting point of the ... analysis must be a recognition that ... federal law gives each State great latitude in dispensing its available funds.' " --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1296. Anderson involved wholly different regulatory provisions and issues from the present case. Moreover, the "great latitude in dispensing its available [AFDC] funds”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jenkins v. Palmer“To bring a successful facial challenge outside the context of the First Amendment, 'the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid.'”
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.