Freestone v. Cowan’s Empirical Analysis
68 F.3d 1141 · 1995
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 603 (§ 403 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 451 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 652 (§ 452 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 654 (§ 454 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 655 (§ 455 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 666 (§ 466 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Monroe v. Pape · Cort v. Ash · Maine v. Thiboutot · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. at 1216 . The court also noted that the plaintiffs could each seek individual relief through private suits to enforce support orders and establish paternity. 45 Unlike all the other courts that have considered the comprehensive enforcement scheme argument, the district court in the case now before us agreed with and adopted the Carelli court's rationale. However, an examination of the cases in which the Supreme Court has discussed the issue shows that the Title IV-D audit and penalty scheme fall far short of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Freestone v. Cowan“). 50 The reasoning in Carelli is completely inconsistent with that in Wright, and Carelli did not attempt to distinguish the Supreme Court's discussion in that case. The Secretary here has no more power than HUD possessed in Wright. All HHS can do is audit and reduce AFDC funding. Moreover, the Wright Court explicitly rejected the argument subsequently adopted by Carelli that plaintiffs have other state court remedies. The Wright Court reasoned that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Freestone v. Cowan“expressly provides that enforcement need not be 100%. The formulas in the statute and regulations are exceedingly complex, but generally provide for percentages, such as 75%, and say that if the state does what it is supposed to do 75% of the time, that is good enough. See 42 U.S.C. Secs. 602 (a)(27), 652(g); 45 C.F.R. Sec. 305.20(d)(2). The number and elaborateness of the provisions necessarily makes the decision about whether compliance is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Freestone v. Cowan
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.