Baker v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.2d 1197 · 1988
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1320A (§ 1127 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Burnett v. Heckler · Wheeler v. Heckler · Detson v. Schweiker · McKenzie v. Bowen · McCarthy v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Secretary may, upon written authorization by an individual, withhold benefits due with respect to that individual and may pay to a State ... from the benefits withheld an amount sufficient to reimburse the State ... for interim assistance furnished on behalf of the individual by the State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pappas v. Bowen“The windfall which concerned Congress relates both to offsetting retroactive [Title II] and SSI benefits and to offsetting these federal disability benefits and local welfare assistance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“if [Title XVI] is not calculated first when concurrent, retroactive awards of [Title XVI and Title II] benefits are made, the state may never be reimbursed”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Guadamuz v. Bowen
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.