Clifford v. Janklow’s Empirical Analysis
733 F.2d 534 · 1984
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2014
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 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. § 1437F · 42 U.S.C. § 8601 · 42 U.S.C. § 8624
Relies on Blum v. Bacon · Crawford v. Janklow · Schmiege v. Secretary of Agriculture of the United States · Crawford v. Janklow
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Section 8624(f) ] clearly prohibits the states from reducing a household’s entitlement to other forms of public assistance based on its receipt of LIHEAA funds (citation omitted). The question presented here is whether the provision also evinces Congress’s intent to prevent the states from achieving the same net effect by the opposite method, that is, reducing the LIHEAA grant based on the applicant’s receipt of other forms of public assistance. ... We see no logical reason why it should be permissible for a state to achieve a net effect contrary to Congress’s intent merely by subtracting from one side of an equation instead of the other. 12”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he question presented in this case is different than the one we confronted in Crawford in that the State has reduced the benefit levels for subsidized housing residents — sometimes down to zero — instead of categorically excluding them from the program.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clifford v. Janklow“clearly prohibits the states from reducing a household's entitlement to other forms of public assistance based on its receipt of [federal funds under the energy subsidy program]”
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.