9 F. Supp. 2d 109 - Ward v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1437 (HOPE VI Program Reauthorization and Small Community Mainstreet Rejuvenation and Housing Act of 2003) · 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)
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Quern v. Jordan · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because 'notice relief' is not the type of remedy designed to prevent ongoing violations of federal law, the Eleventh Amendment limitation on the Art. III power of federal courts prevents them from ordering it as an independent form of relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ward v. Clark“all children who received [AFDC] benefits at any point between August 1, 1995 and October 1, 1996, while living in subsidized housing with a non-legally liable caretaker relative who was not a member of the child's assistance unit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ward v. Clark“expressly retains duties and obligations incumbent upon a state under the AFDC program which existed prior to the effective date of the amendment, as well as prior claims, such as plaintiffs' underpayment claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ward v. Clark
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.