Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 F.3d 619 - Riley v. Shalala

Riley v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis

18 F.3d 619 · 1994

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
May 2016
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 12 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Ngure v. Ashcroft (2004), Prosch v. Apfel (2000)

26 federal appellate · 12 district ·

450199420002010decided

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. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Bowen v. Yuckert · Browning v. Sullivan · Woolf v. Shalala · Thomas v. Sullivan · Nelson v. Sullivan

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

  1. “is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, including the new evidence submitted after the determination was made.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[The court] must speculate to some extent on how the administrative law judge would have weighed the newly submitted reports if they had been available for the original hearing.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “first, that the Appeals Council improperly failed to consider [newly submitted evidence in the form of medical reports] and, second, that even if the Appeals Council considered them, it wrongly concluded that they provided no basis for a grant of review of the administrative law judge's decision.”
    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.