Lynch v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2013
6 district · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 604 (§ 404 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 608 (§ 408 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 620 (§ 420 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 421 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Maine v. Thiboutot · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Rosado v. Wyman
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) has implemented and is operating to the satisfaction of the Secretary —(B) a case review system ... for each child receiving foster care under the supervision of the State....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Here, Congress — and not any court — created requirements it thought essential to protect the welfare of foster children. The Commonwealth voluntarily undertook to fulfill those requirements as a condition of receiving federal money. Plaintiffs filed suit to enforce those requirements because they believed it would serve their best interests to do so.... In granting preliminary relief to plaintiffs, this court does not substitute its judgment for that of state officials. It instead gives realization to the will of Congress and protection requested by those Congress intended to protect. Indeed, if the court chose to deny relief on the grounds urged by defendants, that denial would reflect a judgment that the wisdom of Congress and desires of plaintiffs should go unheeded because the Commonwealth knows better than any of them how to serve plaintiffs’ interests. This court is not free to make such a judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The defendants’ interest consists in freedom from a burdensome judicial order that will disrupt the management of [DSS], including delivery of the very services plaintiffs seek. For a court to intrude in the present case is to risk demoralizing agency personnel and engendering cynicism in an improving administration; to substitute judicial judgment for that of trained professionals and a legalistic atmosphere for a therapeutic one; to risk a confrontation with the state legislature; to risk stripping funds from crucial programs in order to pay for others receiving judicial attention; to risk forcing the state to give up badly needed federal funds, rather than comply with a far more costly judicial order.”
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.