Barnes v. Healy’s Empirical Analysis
980 F.2d 572 · 1992
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Walters v. Reno (1998), 57 Cal. App. 4th 784 - Campos v. Anderson (1997)
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · County of Los Angeles v. Davis · Marco Defunis et al. v. Charles Odegaard, President of the University of Washington.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The class challenges this element of the court's order on the ground that only the federally specified collection date can allow custodial parents to determine whether the IV-D agency has erred in denying them a pass-through payment. 19 California uses several different methods to collect child support payments from absent parents. For example, the state can order wages withheld, intercept a tax refund or lottery winnings, or withhold unemployment or state disability benefits. For each of these methods of collection, the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barnes v. Healy“[A] weighing of the Mathews [v. Eldridge] factors suggests that the administrative burden of providing an explanation for denying a [certain benefit] is minimal in light of the added potential for spotting erroneously withheld [benefits].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“and is insufficient to enable custodial parents to detect errors in DSS' accounting and distribution of collected support. A. Date of Collection 18 In its January order, the district court required that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barnes v. Healy
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.