U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— SOCIAL SECURITY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GRANTS TO STATES FOR OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE

42 U.S.C. § 301

Authorization of appropriations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purpose of enabling each State, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to furnish financial assistance to aged needy individuals, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this subchapter. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary”), State plans for old-age assistance.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,262 cases (517 in the last 5 years), 1937–2026 · leading case: Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97 (2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97 (2019). · cites it 2× “620 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. §301 et seq., are recognizably adjudicative in nature.”
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). · cites it 2× “620 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. §301 et seq., provides for payment of attorney’s fees awards directly to counsel, see §406(b)(1)(A), and until 2006 the Government in many cases treated fees awards under EAJA the same way, see Reply Brief for Petitioner 13−14.”
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011). · cites it 2× “Code (“Public Health and Welfare”), which governs, inter alia, Social Secu rity, see 42 U. S. C. §301 et seq., Medicare, see §1395 et seq.”
Bernard Laborin v. Nancy Berryhill, 867 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017). “denial of his applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 301 -1397mm. The ÁLJ did not credit Laborin’s testimony regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his…”
Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2008). “Dianna Elder applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), claiming that her fibro-myalgia rendered her disabled as that term is defined by the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. The *410 administrative law judge (ALJ)…”
Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1981). · cites it 2× “[1] The SSI program, Title XVI of the Social Security Act, largely replaced the prior system of federal grants to state-run assistance programs for the aged, blind, and disabled contained in Titles I, X, XIV, and XVI of the Act, that is, Old Age Assistance, 49 Stat.”
Adinolfi v. Meyer (In Re Adinolfi), 543 B.R. 612 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “27 The “Social Security Act” is codified at 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 301 - 28 8 1 1397mm.4 The SSA was first enacted in 1935 and has been amended 2 hundreds of times since then.”
Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U.S. 34 (1981). · cites it 2× “[1] The categorically needy were those entitled to assistance under four programs: Old Age Assistance, 42 U. S. C. § 301 et seq. (1970 ed.); Aid to Families with Dependent Children, § 601 et seq.”
Lockwood v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 914 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2019). “Administrative Proceedings On July 26, 2013, Lockwood submitted an application to the Commissioner pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. , seeking disability insurance benefits as of the date of his automobile accident.”
Josephine L. Cage v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 692 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2012). “Although the ALJ determined that Cage met certain requirements for being “disabled” under the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., he found Cage ineligible for SSI on the ground that drug addiction or alcoholism (“DAA”) was a contributing factor material to…”
Ysabel Rosa v. John S. Callahan, Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999). “Defendant-appellee, the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), denied Rosa’s application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. An administrative law judge (the “ALJ”) subsequently reviewed the matter and upheld…”
Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (1970). · cites it 2× “is peculiarly well equipped to marshal and initially to evaluate." See also Far East Conference v.”
Show all 1,262 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.