Wray v. Flemming’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 1983
2 federal appellate ·
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 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)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · 133 F. Supp. 205 - Thurston v. Hobby · Wall v. Folsom
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In recent decades the principal guide to the meaning of substantial evidence has been a Supreme Court statement written by Chief Justice Hughes: ‘Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ [Consolidated Edison Co. [of New York] v. N. L. R. B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 , 59 S.Ct. 206, 217 , 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938).] A later statement clarifies further: Substantial evidence ‘means evidence which is substantial, that is, affording a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. * * * [i]t must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.’ [N. L. R. B. v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300 , 59 S.Ct. 501, 505 , 83 L.Ed. 660 (1939).]””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * 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““In Fuller v. Folsom, D.C., 155 F.Supp. 348 , at page 349 this court stated the general rules to be followed in reviewing a case of this nature: “ ‘The burden of proof, both before the Referee and in the instant proceeding, is upon the plaintiff. Thurston v. Hobby, D.C.Mo., 133 F. Supp. 205 ; Norment v. Hobby, D.C. Ala., 124 F.Supp. 489 . Not only are the findings of fact made by the Referee, if supported by substantial evidence, conclusive, but a majority of courts also extend the finality of the Referee’s findings to inferences and conclusions which he draws from the evidence, if there is a substantial basis for the conclusions. * * * “ ‘The Referee’s conclusions of law, however, are not binding upon the Court, although they are entitled to great weight. See, Miller v. Burger, 9 Cir., 161 F.2d 992 ; Carroll v. Social Security Board, 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 876 ; Ayers v. Hobby, D.C.Va., 123 F.Supp. 115 ; Ray v. Social Security Board, D.C.Ala., 73 F.Supp. 58 . “ ‘And in reviewing the decision of the Referee, the Court must not abdicate its conventional judicial function. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 490 , 71 S.Ct. 456, 466 , 95 L.Ed. 456 ; Shields v. Folsom, D.C.Pa., 153 F.Supp. 733, 734 .’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.