Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 F.3d 1084 - McNatt v. Apfel

McNatt v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis

201 F.3d 1084 · 2000

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
June 2017
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi · Boettcher v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Mester Manufacturing Company v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

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

  1. “If a claimant’s representative appears at a scheduled hearing without the claimant, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is an essential witness for a proper determination of the case. 1. If the claimant is not considered to be an essential witness, the ALJ should proceed with the hearing and issue the decision. 2. If an ALJ determines that claimant is an essential witness, the ALJ should offer to postpone the hearing so that the claimant may appear. NOTE: If a representative appears at a scheduled hearing without the claimant, dismissal is not appropriate even if the ALJ has determined that the claimant is an essential witness.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An administrative law judge may dismiss a request for a hearing under any of the following conditions: . . . (b)(1)(i) Neither you nor the person you designate to act as your representative appears at the time and place set for the hearing . . . and good cause is not found by the administrative law judge . . . .”
    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.