Heins v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 157 · 1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2023
2 federal appellate · 1 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. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 404 (§ 204 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Dugan v. Sullivan · Austin v. Shalala · Chapman v. Bowen
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen a claimant fails to read a benefits form and verify that the information thereon is correct, the claimant who signs the form may be held to be at fault if the information turns out to be incorrect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would defeat the purpose of [the Social Security Act] or would be against equity and good conscience.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
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.