LaMadrid v. Hegstrom’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 104 · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 607 (§ 407 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Dandridge v. Williams · Perrin v. United States · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Company · Eisner v. Macomber
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A personal injury award does not increase the measurable worth of the individual receiving the award. * * * [A]n award for property damage is an award to replace something lost, like a car or a stove. A personal injury award likewise compensates a person for loss of a resource, whether it be a lost body part or loss of the ability to function in a certain manner. Compenastion for personal injuries functions to restore the recipient to the status she or he enjoyed prior to the injury. A personal injury award merely serves to make the person "whole" or to restore what was lost by the injury. There is not the measurable gain which is an essential part of the common definition of "income." While no amount of money can actually replace a lost body part, the concept of damages has always been viewed as a way to make the injured party whole.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.