Warburton v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
188 F.3d 1047 · 1999
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Prosch v. Apfel (2000), Singh v. Apfel (2000)
16 federal appellate · 7 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Bowen v. Yuckert · Polaski v. Heckler · Woolf v. Shalala · Smith v. Shalala · Roe v. Chater
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole, we must affirm the administrative decision, even if the record could also have supported an opposite decision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's decision as well as evidence that supports it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order to constitute substantial evidence, testimony from a VE must be based on a properly phrased hypothetical question. See Roe v. Chater, 92 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1996). Such a hypothetical “should precisely set out the claimant’s particular physical and mental impairments.” House v. Shalala, 34 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1994) (internal citations omitted). The hypothetical need not use specific diagnostic terms, however, where other descriptive terms adequately describe the claimant’s impairments. See Roe, 92 F.3d at 676 .”
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.