108 F. Supp. 2d 921 - Wooten v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Thomas v. Arn · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Beavers v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Smith
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.
“In making his recommendations in this case, Magistrate Judge Murrian had to determine what if any effect the deletion by the Social Security Administration of the Obesity Listing 9.09 had on Wooten’s case. Deletion of this listing was one of the changes brought about by new regulations that became effective on October 25, 1999. See 64 FED. REG. 46122 (1999). As one of the first members of the judiciary to face this issue, Magistrate Judge Murrian thoroughly discussed the retroactive effect of these new regulations. Magistrate Judge Murrian’s opinion is well-reasoned and complete and no purpose would be served by merely duplicating his opinion. Consequently, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs objections and accepts and adopts the report and recommendation in full.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.