Deel v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.2d 1079 · 1988
Citation profile
3 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1382B (§ 1613 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396P (§ 1917 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 603 (§ 403 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bell v. Burson · King v. Smith · Morton v. Ruiz · Jones v. Howard
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Supreme Court has emphasized the value of the state role in AFDC ad ministration. In New York State Department of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405 , 93 S.Ct. 2507 , 37 L.Ed.2d 688 (1973), for example, the Court upheld New York AFDC rules requiring able applicants to register for training and employment against a claim that the rules conflicted with federal law. The Court stated that ‘[t]he problems confronting our society in [the area of welfare administration] are severe, and state governments, in cooperation with the Federal Government, must be allowed considerable latitude in attempting their resolution.’ Id. at 413 , 93 S.Ct. at 2513 . The Court’s opinion in Dublino underscores the fact that Congress cannot prescribe every detail of a program as complex as AFDC. If it could, state agencies would serve no independent purpose. The reality, however, is that state flexibility allows the development of specifically tailored solutions to specific problems, and provides fifty state proving grounds in which the efficacy of administrative innovations can be tested.” Deel, 862 F.2d at 1083 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, the principle of actual availability has not been understood to distinguish the treatment of tax withholdings from that of other work expenses. Rather, it has served primarily to prevent the States from conjuring fictional sources of income and resources by imputing financial support from persons who have no obligation to furnish it or by overvaluing assets in a manner that at tributes non-existent resources to recipients.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Income . . . and resources available for current use shall be considered. To the extent not inconsistent with any other provision of this chapter, income and resources are considered available both when actually available and when the applicant or recipient has a legal interest in a liquidated sum and has the legal ability to make such sum available for support and maintenance."”
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.