Hobby v. Hodges’s Empirical Analysis
215 F.2d 754 · 1954
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Cappadora v. Celebrezze (1966), Grose v. Cohen (1969)
61 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions
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. § 3501 · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 403 (§ 203 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 1009
Relies on Lynch v. United States · Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board · Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co. · Stark v. Wickard · United States v. Babcock
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * After a final decision following a hearing, any individual who was a party to that hearing may obtain a review of such decision by civil action brought in the proper United States District Court, but that action may be brought only within sixty days after the mailing to the party of the notice of such decision. Upon review, the court has the power to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision. The findings of the Board as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive upon the court and are not otherwise subject to review. The findings and decision therefore may become final either by lapse of time or court approval. Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37, 54 , 68 S.Ct. 822 , 92 L.Ed. 1196 . To permit the applicant to relitigate a claim after failure to obtain a court review within the statutory time would run counter to the apparent purposes and provisions of the Act. Thompson v. Social Security Board, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 27 , 154 F.2d 204 ; United States v. LaLone, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 43 ; Social "Security Board v. Warren, 8 Cir., 142 F.2d 974 ; Walker v. Altmeyer, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 531 ; Cf. South v. Railroad Retirement Board, 5 Cir., 131 F.2d 748 ; United States v. Willard Tablet Co., 7 Cir., 141 F.2d 141 . If the applicant in this case is permitted to have his claim relitigated, as he has sought to do, there would be no end to the controversy, and the provision in the statute which requires an action to be brought within sixty days after”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(g) Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary 1 made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow. . . . (h) The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“’ “ * * * The findings of the Administrator are conclusive upon the court as to any fact if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (g). * * * The review is not a trial de novo but is limited to the pleadings and the transcript of the proceedings at the hearing. The district court has jurisdiction only to review the record. The statute does not give the district court power to treat the complaint as a mandamus action against the Administrator or to hold a hearing and determine the merits of the claim. The determination of claims is solely a function of the Administrator.””
2 later decisions 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.