Norman v. St. Clair’s Empirical Analysis
610 F.2d 1228 · 1980
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2001 · most notably Schweiker v. Gray Panthers (1981), Gayet v. Gayet (1983)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 Buckley v. Valeo · Dandridge v. Williams · Weinberger v. Salfi · King v. Smith · Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Beyond such degree of relationship, however, requirements (of support) imposed are often destructive and harmful to the relationships among members of the family group.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“all-purpose 'grandfathering' clause which effectively legitimizes any and every provision appearing in a state plan in 1972.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Another provision is included that requires States to take into account only such income and resources as (determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary), are actually available to the applicant or recipient. . . . Income and resources taken into account, furthermore, must be reasonably evaluated by the States. These provisions are designed so that the States will not assume the availability of income which may not, in fact, be available or overevaluate income and resources which are available. Examples of income assumed include support orders from absent fathers, which have not been paid or contributions from relatives which are not in reality received by the needy individual.”
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.