Vance v. Hegstrom’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.2d 1018 · 1986
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably Wallace v. Christensen (1986), Olson v. Norman (1987)
32 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 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) · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Cannon v. University of Chicago · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee · American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson · Batterton v. Francis
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he plain meaning of the words chosen by Congress is controlling in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative intent”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(B) provide for taking into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant or recipient and ... (D) do not take into account the financial responsibility of any individual for any applicant or recipient of assistance under the plan unless such applicant or recipient is such individual’s spouse or such individual’s child who is under age 21 or ... is blind or permanently and totally disabled”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n structuring a Medicaid filing unit by defining it in such a way as to include sibling income, the Secretary is doing ... that which he is expressly precluded from doing by subsection (17)(D)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.