708 F. Supp. 483 - Jackson Ex Rel. Forrest v. Mullany’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2000
2 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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 208 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 658 (§ 458 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Bowen v. Gilliard · Bradley v. Austin · Gorrie v. Bowen · Ruby Oliver v. James G. Ledbetter · Todd v. Norman
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall disregard the first $50 of any child support payments received in such month with respect to the dependent child or children in any family applying for or receiving aid to families with dependent children (including support payments collected and paid to the family under section 657(b) of this title); ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The [AFDC] regulation does not subject Title II benefits to legal process, however, nor does it result in an assignment or transfer of benefits. It requires only that Title II benefit recipients apply for AFDC and have their incomes included in the family filing unit. This does not constitute a use of legal process to garnish or attach benefits... The Title II benefit checks are not actually received and then disbursed by the state agency; rather, they continue to go directly to the child’s representative payee... The regulation results in an inclusion of income, not an assignment or transfer of Title II benefits.”
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.