Jackson v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
683 F.2d 1076 · 1982
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2003 · most notably Robinson v. Bowen (1987), Summy v. Schweiker (1982)
15 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1382A (§ 1612 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. · Schweiker v. Gray Panthers · Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman · Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League · Briggs v. Connecticut
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he additional shelter provided no longer responds to the “basic needs,” ... of a recipient who has already committed 77% of her income to shelter and it no longer enhances purchasing power to the full extent of the difference. The additional housing is thus beyond the range of basic needs. And the imputation of an additional percentage of income to shelter over and above 77% may have the effect of making fewer dollars available for the other necessities of life. These residual dollars would seem clearly essential to meet basic needs for food, clothing, etc. The loss of dollars to meet even the most essential of these basic needs represents a loss of value which probably more than offsets any additional value of shelter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Beckless v. Chater“The increased value to Jackson, or a similarly situated recipient, of the additional shelter is, as shelter, minimal; moreover, no additional funds have been made available to Jackson to meet non-shelter needs. The additional shelter is, in effect, “phantom income.” In the argot of economies, the marginal utility (or incremental value) of the additional housing, to a recipient already devoting 77% of her income to shelter, although greater than zero, is far less than the excess of market value over actual rent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ragsdale v. Apfel“all recipients of and applicants for [SSI] in the State of Indiana who have had, or will have, SSI benefits reduced, terminated or denied because of the application of 20 C.F.R. § 416.1125 [1980] insofar as it requires that the difference between the fair market value and the actual price paid by a SSI recipient or applicant for a necessity of life be considered as countable, in-kind income.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. Heckler
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.