Carter v. Comm Social Security’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
June 2019
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Plummer v. Apfel · Purter v. Heckler
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.
“[t]he affirmative defense of res judicata did not bind [the ALJ in the second decision] because the record contained new evidence that was unavailable to [the first ALJ], and because the relief sought was limited to a determination that he was disabled from July 1999, instead of May 1995 as alleged in the earlier application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Babyak v. Berryhill
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.