green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Daugherty v. Wallace
See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F.Supp. 853 , aff'd, 393 U.S. 323 [ 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 ].
cited
Cited "see"
Sturgell v. Creasy
See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F.Supp. 853 , aff'd, 393 U.S. 323 ( 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed. 511 ).
cited
Cited "see"
Sturgell v. Creasy
See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F.Supp. 853 , aff’d, 393 U.S. 323 [ 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed. 511 ].
cited
Cited "see"
People Ex Rel. Holland v. Bleigh Construction Co.
See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F. Supp. 853 , aff’d, 393 U.S. 323 .
cited
Cited "see"
Patrick v. Tennessee Department of Public Welfare
See Snell v. Wyman, D.C., 281 F.Supp. 853 , aff’d, 393 U.S. 323 [ 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 ].
discussed
Cited "see"
Paka v. Manson
See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F.Supp. 853, 865 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d per curiam, 393 U.S. 323 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969); cf. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 208 , 47 S.Ct. 584 , 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927).
discussed
Cited "see"
Doe v. Norton
(2×)
See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F.Supp. 853, 869 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (three-judge district court), aff'd, 393 U.S. 323 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Curtis v. Child
(2×)
See Snell v. Wyman, D.C., 281 F. Supp. 853 , aff'd, 393 U.S. 323 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 .
cited
Cited "see"
Travis v. Department of Public Welfare
See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F. Supp. 853 (1968), affirmed, 393 U.S. 323 , 89 S. Ct. 553 , 21 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Fullington v. Shea
See Snell v. Wyman, D.C., 281 F.Supp. 853 , aff’d, 393 U.S. 323 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 .
cited
Cited "see"
Gonzales v. Shea
See Snell v. Wyman, D.C., 281 F.Supp. 853 , aff’d, 393 U.S. 323 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 .
cited
Cited "see"
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Taylor
See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F. Supp. 853 (1968), affirmed in 393 U. S. 323 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alexander v. Swank
(2×)
See Snell v. Wyman, D.C., 281 F.Supp. 853 , aff'd, 393 U.S. 323 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Catalano v. Department of Hospitals of City of New York
(2×)
See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F.Supp. 853, 867-868 (S.D.N.Y.1968), affd., 393 U.S. 323 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed. 2d 511 (1969) (holding that New York’s welfare laws and regulations requiring welfare recipients in certain instances to repay the cost of assistance benefits if they are discovered to have property, recover for injuries in a lawsuit or are entitled to insurance proceeds, are not inconsistent with Social Security provisions which grant aid to families with dependent children to enable recipients of assistance “to attain or retain capability for * * * maximum self-support and personal …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mendelson v. Transport of New Jersey
This right [has been] apparently universally accepted in practice, particularly where the agency [has] obtained as assignment not of the claim itself, but of the proceeds of the claim (NY Legis Ann, 1964, p 316)” (Baker v Sterling, 39 NY2d 397, 404 , supra; see also, Snell v Wyman, 281 F Supp 853 , affd 393 US 323 ).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Perillo v. Commonwealth
See also Snell v. Wyman, 281 F.Supp. 853 (D.N.Y.1968), aff'd, 393 U.S. 323 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969), upholding a comparable policy of the State of New York.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SNELL ET AL.
v.
WYMAN, COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
v.
WYMAN, COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
191.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 14, 1969.
393 U.S. 323
Per Curiam.
Cited by 31 opinions | Published
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
James J. Graham and Martin Garbus for appellants.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. La Torella, Jr., and Maria L. Marcus, Assistant Attorneys General, for Wyman, and J. Lee Rankin and Stanley Buchsbaum for Ginsberg, appellees.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Weisl, Peter L. Strauss, and Morton Hollander for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.