Grunfeder v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
748 F.2d 503 · 1984
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2004 · most notably Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Board of Equalization (1985), Paxton v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1988)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 26 U.S.C. § 104 · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983) · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382A (§ 1612 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 43 U.S.C. § 1620 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Morton v. Ruiz · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Company · Lauritzen v. Larsen · National Labor Relations Board v. Brown
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Absent an expression of congressional intent to the contrary, considerations of courtesy and mutuality require our courts to construe domestic legislation in a way that minimizes interference with the purpose or effect of foreign law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“anything you receive in cash or in kind that you can use to meet your needs”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The payee of the check should not be determinative. If the money is to be used for the children, it is not the spouse's income, for it is not money "which he can apply ... to meeting his basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." 20 C.F.R. § 416.1102 (a). Nor is it "actually available" in any meaningful sense. Id. § 416.1120.”
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.