Brown v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
662 F.2d 464 · 1981
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 1993
3 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Schweiker v. Gray Panthers · Kissinger v. Halperin · Powell v. Dellums · Bond v. Stanton · Campbell v. John Donnelly & Sons
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We, therefore, emphasize that this case has been decided as a matter of statutory, not constitutional construction. Consistent with footnote 23 in Gray Panthers , we too leave appellants' constitutional arguments open to litigation on remand while intimating no opinion as to their merit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This case presents the question whether any “deeming” is consistent with the “availability” requirement of subsection (17)(B). We hold that it is. We do not, however, decide whether state plans that set aside inadequate sums for the contributing spouse are consistent with other provisions of the statute, such as the requirement that States “reasonably] evaluate ... income or resources.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17)(C). In sum, whatever deficiencies may exist in specific state plans are not at issue in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“First, in determining the amount of income and resources belonging to the non-institutionalized spouse that is potentially available for the support of the institutionalized spouse, we held that an individualized factual determination of the non-institutionalized spouse's needs must be undertaken.”
1 later decision 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.