Ram v. Blum’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2002 · most notably Beno v. Shalala (1994), Turner v. Prod Department of Social Services of State of California (1983)
4 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1401 · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Perrin v. United States · Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization · United States v. Larionoff · Lombard v. Marcera
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statute contemplates a four step process for calculating the amount of an eligible family’s monthly AFDC grant. First, the state determines a dollar figure that represents the family’s monthly ‘income’, as that term is used in Section 402(a)(7)(A). This is the step at issue in the case before the Court. Second, the state reduces this dollar figure by a ‘work expense deduction’ calculated in accord with 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(8)(A)(ii) and 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(8)(A)(iii), as those sections were enacted by Section 2301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. Third, the resulting dollar figure is further reduced by a ‘work incentive deduction’ calculated in accord with 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(8)(A)(iv), as that section was enacted by Section 2301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. The ‘work incentive deduction’ is only applied during the first four months of a family’s AFDC eligibility. See Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub.L. No. 97-35, § 2301 , 95 Stat. 844 (1981), 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(8)(B)(ii). Fourth, the resulting dollar figure is compared to the ‘standard of need’ for a family of the same composition. The amount of the family’s monthly AFDC grant is the amount by which the standard of need exceeds the dollar figure obtained by engaging in the first three of the four steps just recited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“except as may be otherwise provided in clause (8), ... take into consideration any other income and resources of any child or relative claiming aid to families with dependent children ... as well as any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“since mandatory payroll deductions were not within the meaning of [Section 602(a)(7)(A) ] income, there was no reason for Congress to pass legislation requiring such amounts to be [disregarded as “work expenses”] from ... income.”
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.