Wright v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
587 F.2d 345 · 1978
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Gonzalez v. Sullivan (1990), Giaimo v. City of New Haven (2001)
35 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 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 · Morrissey v. Brewer · Goldberg v. Kelly · Califano v. Sanders
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[d]ue process,’ unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 [ 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 ] (1961). “[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ] (1972). Accordingly, resolution of the issue whether the administrative procedures provided here are constitutionally sufficient requires analysis of the governmental and private interests that are affected. Arnett v. Kennedy, supra, [ 416 U.S. 134 ] at 167-168 [ 94 S.Ct. 1633, at 1650-1651 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974)] (Powell, J., concurring in part); Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, [ 397 U.S. 254 ] at 263-266 [ 90 S.Ct. 1011, at 1018-1020 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970)]; Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, supra, 367 U.S. at 895 [ 81 S.Ct., at 1748-1749 ]. More precisely, our prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: 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”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[SJince the delays complained of are system-wide and there are no allegations of bad faith, a dilatory attitude, or a lack of evenhandedness on the part of the agency, the reasonableness of the delays in terms of the legislatively imposed “reasonable dispatch” duty must be judged in the light of the resources that Congress has supplied to the agency for the exercise of its functions, as well as the impact of the delays on the applicants’ interests.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In view of the reasons for delay, nationwide in scope, not individualized and the nature of the particular benefits, a judicial fiat cannot help the SSA or claimants. Although judicial intervention may be required at some point, the solution must come from the SSA itself with the assistance of the Congress. Neither the Congress nor the agency has been unmindful of this complex problem. Speed cannot be an end in itself. 587 F.2d at 356.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.