Todd v. Norman’s Empirical Analysis
840 F.2d 608 · 1988
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6402 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 606 (§ 406 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 451 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 657 (§ 457 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · United States v. Turkette · Ross v. Moffitt
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“): A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must (8)(A) provide that ... in making the determination under paragraph (7), the State agency (vi) shall disregard the first $50 of any child support payments ... with respect to the dependent child or children in any family applying for or receiving aid to families with dependent children ( including support payments collected and paid to the family under section 657(b) of this title ).... [Emphasis supplied]. This requires state AFDC plans to provide that the first $50 of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The closest statutory reference in pari materia is an earlier form of the child support disregard, formerly codified in large part at 42 U.S.C. § 657 (1976). The legislative history of that statute leaves little doubt that the child support disregard was established to encourage AFDC recipients to assist the state in establishing paternity and collecting child support. [Citation omitted]. The district court, after imputing the same purpose to the present statute, indicated that no such incentive is intended for AFDC recipients whose children receive Child's Insurance Benefits, because the state is barred by law from collecting such benefits. We are persuaded by the district court's reasoning. The problem addressed by the child support disregard is the collection of child support from absent parents. Child's Insurance Benefits simply are not part of that problem. [Footnote omitted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether a non-custodial parent's private annuity or insurance benefit paid to a dependent child would qualify as `child support' would depend upon the circumstances surrounding the parties involved. If the benefits are neither used, nor officially considered as child support payments, then the non-custodial parent still has to pay whatever support payments are due. If, however, the non-custodial parent used such proceeds as satisfaction of his state-ordered support obligation for a dependent child, there is no logical reason why the $50 disregard could not apply. [ 840 F. 2d at 615 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.