Goodwin v. Perales’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Federally funded Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as [LI-]HEAP, had its origins during the beginning of the Reagan administration’s effort "to allocate funds to the states in the form of block grants so that they could be used efficiently in meeting the differing needs of local communities” (Rodriguez v. Cuomo, 953 F.2d 33, 38 [(2d Cir.1992)]). Acting in this spirit as part of the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Congress decided to repeal an earlier low-income energy assistance statute ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 8601-8612 [added by Pub.L. 96-223 ]) and "replace[ ] it with a fiscally trimmer version ... which removed many of the federal regulations that had controlled the distribution of federal energy assistance funds” (Clifford v. Janklow, 733 F.2d 534, 536 [(8th Cir. 1984)]). Under the resulting legislation, known as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (LIHEAA) ( 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq.), Congress was to make block grants of Federal dollars to qualified States which were then to distribute the funds "to assist low-income households ... in meeting their immediate home energy needs” ( 42 U.S.C. § 8621 [a]). In keeping with the block grant format, Congress authorized States [ ... ] that participate in [LI]HEAP to submit their own plans to administer and distribute the Federal funds for approval by the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 42 U.S.C. § 8624 [a]). In general, each State’s plan must agree to "provide, in a timely manner, that the hi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

2. “the eligibility requirements to be used ... for each type of assistance to be provided” ( 42 U.S.C. § 8624 [c][I][A]). The significance of such delegation is highlighted by the applicable Department of Health and Human Services [ (HHS) ] regulations which provide that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

3. “as long as they are in harmony with the statute's over-all purpose”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nnebe v. Daus