16162b v. Dar E Gatliff’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2020
2 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 16105b v. Dar Reddick · Washington v. Shalala · Heckler v. Edwards · Parsons v. Heckler · Tennant v. Schweiker
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Courts have imposed a durational requirement of substantial activity [that] ... requires the ability to hold the job for a significant period of time.... This was not considered by the ALJ, nor were the numerous exertional and nonexertional restrictions placed upon the Plaintiff due to his mental limitations. This is made clear in the medical reports herein.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] finding that a claimant is able to engage in substantial gainful activity requires more than a simple determination that the claimant can find employment and that he can physically perform certain jobs; it also requires a determination that the claimant can hold whatever job he finds for a significant period of time.”
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.