Green v. Philbrook’s Empirical Analysis
576 F.2d 440 · 1978
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2006
7 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · King v. Smith
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) (1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State, or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number. (2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to— (A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute (b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is the policy of the United States that any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s license or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction, utilize the social security account numbers issued by the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals affected by such law, and may require any individual who is or appears to be so affected to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or numbers, if he has more than one such number) issued to him by the Commissioner of Social Security. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although it is true that certain portions of Section 602(a)(26) may be directed to applicants and recipients who are caretaker relatives rather than children, this distinction does not compel the conclusion that dependent children be excluded from definition as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. McElrath v. Califano
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.