Williams v. Wohlgemuth’s Empirical Analysis
540 F.2d 163 · 1976
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 1996 · most notably Geraghty v. United States Parole Commission (1978), White v. Beal (1977)
21 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 603 (§ 403 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 606 (§ 406 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Sierra Club v. Morton · Hagans v. Lavine · Sosna v. Iowa · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] 11 citizens and bona fide residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who are recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, who require emergency assistance pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§603 (a) (5) and 606(e), and whose need for emergency assistance in addition to their regular assistance grants was beyond their control and the granting of emergency assistance will avoid destitution, but who will in the future be denied the emergency assistance. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The eligible families involved are those with children under 21 who either are, or have recently been, living with close relatives. The families do not have to be receiving, or eligible upon application to receive, AFDC (although they are generally of the same type), but they must be without any available resources and the payment or service must be necessary in order to meet an immediate need that would not otherwise be met.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lynch v. Philbrook“'is as significant for what it omits as for what it says.' " Id. (citation omitted). Our analysis therefore turns on a determination of whether punitive damages fall within the scope of "any legal 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.