Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 FSUPP2D 523 - Mitchell v. Apfel

Mitchell v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
December 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 2012

2 federal appellate ·

30199820002010decided

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. § 1383E (§ 1636 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 422 (§ 222 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Thomas v. Arn · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Dandridge v. Williams · Weinberger v. Salfi

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

  1. “[Rational basis review] “is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices,” and those challenging the rationality of a legislative classification have the burden to negate “every conceivable basis” which might support it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]n individual shall not be considered to be disabled for purposes of this subchapter if alcoholism or drug addiction would (but for this subparagraph) be a contributing factor material to the Commissioner's determination that the individual is disabled.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a perverse incentive that affronts working taxpayers and fails to serve the interests of addicts and alcoholics, many of whom use their disability checks to purchase drugs and alcohol, thereby maintaining their addictions”
    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.