Mattern v. Mathews’s Empirical Analysis
582 F.2d 248 · 1978
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2020 · most notably Califano v. Yamasaki (1979), Wright v. Califano (1978)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Richardson v. Perales · Goldberg v. Kelly · Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In any case in which more than the correct amount of payment has been made, there shall be no adjustment of payments to or recovery by the United States from, any person who is without fault if such adjustment or recovery would defeat the purpose of this subchapter or would be against equity and good conscience.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party . . . may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ross v. Horn
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.