788 F. Supp. 40 - Stowell v. Ives’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 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)
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Maine v. Thiboutot · Rosado v. Wyman · Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[PJrior to 1975 child support payments to which recipient families were entitled were available to help fill the gap between the funds available to a family and the standard of need. Since 1975, however, federal law mandates that families who receive AFDC funds assign the right to receive such child support payments to the state; the state may retain payments in excess of the child support obligations due in the current month. [Doucette, 744 F.Supp. at 24 .] Because of the possibility that state retention of child support payments would cause some families living in so called “gap” states like Maine to loose income necessary for them to meet the standard of need, “Congress provided that any money retained by the state shall be added to the families’ AFDC payments, provided that the monies would not raise a family’s income beyond the standard of need. 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(28).” 7 744 F.Supp. at 25 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stowell v. Sullivan“All families in the State of Maine who would be eligible for AFDC benefits and/or supplemental payments under 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(28) under the AFDC payment levels in effect in Maine on May 1, 1988 and who would receive a smaller total AFDC plus supplemental § 602(a)(28) payment under the AFDC payment levels proposed to be effective April 1, 1992 than they would have received under the May 1, 1988 payment levels.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Stowell v. Sullivan“the Secretary shall not approve any State plan for medical assistance”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stowell v. Ives
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.