124 F. Supp. 2d 134 - Keesing v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Heckler v. Ringer · Schweiker v. Chilicky · Ostroff v. State of Fla., Dept. of Health · 38 F. Supp. 2d 224 - Ciccone v. Apfel
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The only proper defendant in an action under section 405(g) is the Commissioner of Social' Security.” (citation omitted)); see also Langella v. Bush, No. 03 Civ. 5114(RWS), 2004 WL 2668400 , at (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2004). 2 . References to”
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.