Termini v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
611 F.2d 367 · 1979
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2004 · most notably Bowen v. Gilliard (1987), Bradley v. Austin (1988)
9 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Weinberger v. Salfi · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Califano v. Jobst · Califano v. Goldfarb
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the common sense proposition that individuals living with others usually have reduced per capita costs because many of their expenses are shared.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Payment level. The level of State supplementary payments may vary for each category the State elects to include in its federally administered supplement. These categorical variations of payment levels must be specified in the agreement between the Secretary and the State.... (2) Living arrangements. In addition, a State may elect no more than five variations in recognition of the different needs which result from various living arrangements. Types of living arrangements for which variations may be allowed include arrangements such as: (i) Living alone, (ii) Living with an ineligible spouse, (iii) Personal care facility, (iv) Domiciliary or congregate care facility. (b) Relationship to actual cost differences. Under the agreement, variations in State supplementary payment levels will be permitted for each living arrangement the State elects. These differences must be based on rational distinctions between both the types of living arrangements and the cost of these arrangements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the classification has some 'reasonable basis,' it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification 'is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.' Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 , 78 [31 S.Ct. 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911) ]. 'The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations—illogical, it may be, and unscientific.' Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 , 69-70 [33 S.Ct. 441, 443, 57 L.Ed. 730 (1913) ]. 'A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.' McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , 426 [81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961) ].”
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.