Antonioli v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(d) Valuation of support and maintenance for individuals in household situations. When an eligible individual ... lives in a household (i.e., is not in an institution) ... any support and maintenance received in kind but not received in lieu of cash wages ... is unearned income. In such cases effective with payments for December 1974, the maximum value of such support and maintenance is presumed to be at two-thirds of the applicable payment standard; i.e., the value is presumed to be one-third of the payment standard.... This presumption will be applied in determining the benefits unless it is rebutted by the individual’s establishing that the current market value of such support and maintenance, less any payment he makes therefor, is lower than the presumed value. This rule will apply in the following circumstances: * * * * * * (2) When an eligible individual ... lives in his own household, including a commercial establishment, and receives support and maintenance in kind.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bloodsaw v. Sullivan · Styles v. Harris

2. “This regulation is clearly 'reasonably related to the purposes of enabling legislation,' Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 , 280-81, 89 S.Ct. 518, 525, 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969), because it tends to equalize the status of SSI recipients who live in quarters owned by friends or relatives, paying little or no rent, and those who must obtain housing in the marketplace. See Mourning v. Family Publications Service, 411 U.S. 356 , 369, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 1600, 36 L.Ed.2d 318 (1973); National Welfare Rights Organization v. Mathews, 533 F.2d 637 , 645 (D.C.Cir.1976).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Styles v. Harris · Buschmann v. Schweiker

3. “Appellant argues that applying a fair market value standard deprives him of the benefit of his bargain in acquiring inexpensive housing. But such a bargain cannot be assumed in a father-son relationship. Unearned income presumably would not arise, however, as a consequence of an SSI recipient’s having negotiated rent at less than market value in an arm’s length transaction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nunemaker v. Sec. Hew USA