Lucy v. Chater’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.3d 905 · 1997
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Hackett v. Barnhart (2005), Victoria A. Howard v. Larry Massanari, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 1 (2001)
23 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 Thompson v. Bowen · Newton v. Chater · Pickney v. Chater · Gude v. Sullivan
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'concluded that borderline intellectual functioning, if supported by the record ... is a significant nonexertional impairment . that must be considered by a vocational expert.’ ” Grissom, 416 F.3d at 837 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Lucy v. Chater, 113 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir.1997)); cf. Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir.2008) (indicating that”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`an ALJ may use the Guidelines even though there is a nonexertional impairment if the ALJ finds, and the record supports the finding, that the nonexertional impairment does not diminish the claimant's residual functional capacity to perform the full range of activities listed in the Guidelines.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For each job described, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles specifies the type of reasoning capabilities the job requires. 2 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 1010-11 (4th ed.1991). For instance, a job rated reasoning level one requires the ability to understand and carry out simple instructions, whereas a job rated reasoning level two requires the ability to understand and carry out detailed instructions. Id. at 1011 . Many of the jobs listed require level two reasoning or higher in the unskilled sedentary category ...”
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.