Widrig v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.3d 1207 · 1998
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Ed. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., a Corporation, Richard A. Perkins, Counsel for Ed Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., a Corporation, H. O'Neil Shanks, and Norman Stevans, Richard A. Perkins, Counsel For · Jordan · Wells v. Bowen
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a court `is not required to articulate its reasons' for accepting or rejecting such a request.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that we should examine the contingency of Social Security cases as a class rather than assessing the riskiness of a particular case”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gisbrecht v. Apfel
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.