Quarles v. St. Clair’s Empirical Analysis
711 F.2d 691 · 1983
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh (1983), In re Thalheim (1988)
38 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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. § 1302 (§ 1102 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 451 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. § 657 (§ 457 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 658 (§ 458 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · United States v. Turkette · Cannon v. University of Chicago · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Contents. A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must— (28) provide that, in determining the amount of aid to which an eligible family is entitled, any portion of the amounts collected in any particular month as child support pursuant to a plan approved under part D [42 USCS §§ 651 et seq.], and retained by the State under section 457 [42 USCS § 657], which (under the State plan approved under this part [42 USCS §§ 601, et seq.] as in effect both during July 1975 and during that particular month) would not have caused a reduction in the amount of aid paid to the family if such amounts had been paid directly to the family, shall be added to the amount of aid otherwise payable to such family under the State plan approved under this part [42 USCS §§ 601 et seq.].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Interpretations which render parts of a statute inoperative or superfluous are to be avoided.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 . The Accident/Incident Policy states that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 602(a)(28) refers to the child support obligations collected in any particular month. It does not employ such terms as “due” or “owed” which the government would have us read into the statute as modifiers. Collected means collected. Had Congress wished the statute to have a modified reach, so as to distinguish due and excess contributions, it could easily have stated this distinction. Yet it did not. It chose instead to require the states to disburse to the AFDC family any collected child support obligations, to the extent that such amounts would not affect AFDC eligibility in any given month.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.