Ruppert v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
871 F.2d 1172 · 1989
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Ceguerra v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1991), Zankel v. United States (1990)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382A (§ 1612 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382E (§ 1616 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382F (§ 1617 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League · Baginsky v. United States · Escambia County v. McMillan · Buschmann v. Schweiker
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... decided that it will determine [with respect to SSI applicants or recipients in the Second Circuit] that an applicant or recipient did not receive an ‘actual economic benefit’ from a rental subsidy when the monthly amount of rent required to be paid equals or exceeds the presumed maximum value described in 20 C.F.R. Section 416.1140(a)(1) (one-third of the Federal benefit rate plus the $20 general income exclusion). If the required amount of rent is less than the presumed maximum value, we will impute as in-kind support and maintenance the difference between the required amount of rent and either the presumed maximum value or the current market rental value, whichever is less.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ellis v. Apfel · Ragsdale v. Apfel“You are not receiving in-kind support and maintenance in the form of room or rent if you are paying the amount charged under a business arrangement. A business arrangement exists when the amount of monthly rent required to be paid equals the current market rental value. Exception: In the States in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin), a business arrangement exists when the amount of monthly rent required to be paid equals or exceeds the presumed maximum value ____ In those States, if the required amount of rent is less than the presumed maximum value, we [the Agency] will impute as in-kind support and maintenance, the difference between the required amount of rent and either the presumed maximum value or the current market value, whichever is less.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ragsdale v. Apfel“if the proportion of income that [the SSI recipient] expend[s] on shelter is so great that it flies in the face of reality to conclude that unearned income in the form of subsidized shelter ... is actually available to the recipient, the unearned income should be disregarded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ellis v. Apfel
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.