Johnson v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
656 F.2d 569 · 1981
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2013
4 federal appellate ·
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 Stanley v. Illinois · Dandridge v. Williams · Weinberger v. Salfi · United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz · Richardson v. Belcher
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The] committee believes that benefits for a child who is adopted by a worker already getting old age or disability benefits should be paid only when the child lost a source of support because his parent retired or became disabled, and that the law should include safeguards against abuse through adoption of children solely to qualify them for benefits. The committee has included in the bill a provision that it believes will accomplish these objectives.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(8) In the case of— (A) an individual entitled to old-age insurance benefits ... a child of such individual adopted after such individual became entitled to such old-age or disability insurance benefits shall be deemed not to meet the requirements of clause (i) or (iii) of paragraph (1)(C) unless such child— (C) is the natural child or stepchild of such individual (including such a child who was legally adopted by such individual), or (D) (i) was legally adopted by such individual in an adoption decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction within the United States, (ii) was living with such individual in the United States and receiving at least one-half of his support from such individual (I) if he is an individual referred to in subparagraph (A), for the year immediately before the month in which such individual became entitled to old-age insurance benefits, ... or (III) if he is an individual referred to in either subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) and the child is the grandchild of. such individual or his or her spouse, for the year immediately before the month in which such child files his or her application for child’s insurance benefits, and (iii) had not attained the age of 18 before he began living with such individual. In the case of a child who was born in the one-year period during which such child must have been living with and receiving at least one-half of his support from such individual, such child shall be deemed to meet such requirements for such period if”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“indicate[s] the Court's approval of the rational-basis standard as the appropriate test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grigsby v. Barnhart
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.