Head v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 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)
Relies on Sullivan v. Stroop · 172 Cal. App. 3d 652 - City and County of San Francisco v. Thompson · Dusenberry v. Dusenberry · State Ex Rel. Southwell v. Chamberland · S.M v. v. Littlepage
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.
“The Supreme Court observed that Title II Social Security payments "are explicitly characterized as "insurance' benefits and are paid out of the public treasury to all applicants meeting the criteria." Sullivan, 496 U.S. at 485 , 110 S.Ct. at 2504 , 110 L.Ed.2d at 446 . Thus, while the Court acknowledged that "Title II child's insurance benefits might be characterized as 'support' in the generic sense," those benefits were not the sort of child support payments from absent parents envisioned by the Act. Id. The Court then concluded that Title II child's insurance benefits are not "child support payments" and that no portion of those benefits may be disregarded when computing the combined value of the family's resources for AFDC benefits eligibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stultz v. Stultz
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.