Bostick v. Folsom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district ·

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or to be of long-continued and indefinite duration.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evans v. Gardner · Varnado v. Flemming

2. ““ * * * The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holt v. Flemming · Varnado v. Flemming

3. ““The Act does not require a disability to be permanent. The Act itself, 42 U.S.C.A. § 416 (i) (2) (B), provides that a period of disability shall end when the disability ceases or the person attains the age of 65. “And the Congressional Record demonstrates conclusively that the disability need not be permanent. At page 3730 of Volume 3, U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News, supra, it is said: “ ‘Disability must have lasted for 6 months before it may be considered. This provision is intended to exclude from consideration temporary conditions which terminate within 6 months. “ ‘In prescribing that the freeze apply only in the case of impairments ‘which can be expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration’ your committee seeks to assure that only long-lasting impairments are covered. This provision is not inconsistent with efforts toward rehabilitation since it refers only to the duration of the impairment and does not require a prediction of continued inability to work.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miles v. Celebrezze