Fabula v. Buck’s Empirical Analysis
598 F.2d 869 · 1979
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Schweiker v. Hogan (1982), Atkins v. Rivera (1986)
20 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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 · Quern v. Jordan · Townsend v. Swank · Lavine v. Milne · Thompson v. Hensley
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“best calculated to reach [the plaintiff class] without imposing an unreasonable burden on the state.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ona Mae Reed Sallie Long Ruth Wilcher Opal Mae Cook Stella King, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Health and Human Services, and William L. Lukhard, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Ona Mae Reed Sallie Long Ruth Wilcher Opal Mae Cook Stella King, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Health and Human Services, and William L. Lukhard, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Ona Mae Reed Sallie Long Ruth Wilcher Opal Mae Cook Stella King, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Department of Health and Human Services, William L. Lukhard, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Welfare · Avery v. Secretary of Health & Human Services““(17) include reasonable standards (which shall be comparable for all groups . .) for determining eligibility for and the extent of medical assistance under the plan which . (B) provide for taking into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant or recipient and (in the case of an applicant who would, except for income and resources, be eligible [to receive . SSI benefits i. e. the categorically needy]) as would not be disregarded ... in determining his eligibility for such aid, assistance or benefits.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Caldwell v. Blum · Dawson v. Myers“a State's interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its welfare program may not be protected by the device of adopting eligibility requirements restricting the class of [individuals] made eligible by federal standards.”
2 later decisions 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.