577 F. Supp. 1085 - Clark v. Harder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Present Law.--Any payments that meet the definition of income--for example, retroactive social security benefits--are counted as income in the month of receipt and any of the payment that is not spent in that month is usually considered as a resource in the months thereafter. 18 Committee amendment.--The committee believes that lump-sum payments should be considered available to meet the ongoing needs of an AFDC family. The present treatment of such payments has the perverse effect of encouraging the family to spend such income as quickly as possible in order to retain AFDC eligibility. The committee amendment would require that such income received in a month be considered available as income in the month it is received and also in future months.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. Coler · Sweeney v. Murray

2. “[i]n common parlance, the word 'specify' contains some connotation of restriction”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 577 F. Supp. 1180 - Faught v. Heckler · Barnes v. Cohen

3. “§ 2632(a) § 402(2)(17) of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end thereof (after and below subparagraph (b)) the following: Except that the state may at its option recalculate the period of ineligibility as otherwise determined under subparagraph (A) (but only with respect to the remaining months in such period) in any one or more of the following cases: (i) an event occurs which, had the family been receiving aid under the State plan for the month of the occurrence, would result in a change in the amount of aid payable for such-month under the plan, or (ii) the income received has become unavailable to the members of the family for reasons that were beyond the control of such members, or (iii) the family incurs, becomes responsible for, and pays medical expenses (as allowed by the State) in a month of ineligibility determined under subparagraph (A) (which expenses may be considered as an offset against the amount of income received in the first month of such ineligibility). (b) § 402(a)(17) of such Act is further amended— (1) by striking out “a person specified in paragraph (8)(A)(i) or (ii)" in the matter preceding paragraph (A) and inserting in lieu thereof “a child or relative applying for or receiving aid to families with dependent children or any other person whose need the State considers when determining the income of a family", and (2) effective on the date the enactment of this Act, by striking out "an amount of income" in the manner preceding subpar”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vermeulen v. Kheder