Coy v. Folsom’s Empirical Analysis
228 F.2d 276 · 1955
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 1988 · most notably Bomer v. Ribicoff (1962), Hodgson v. Humphries (1972)
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 301 (§ 1 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · United States v. Silk · Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch · Social Security Board v. Nierotko · Helvering v. Davis
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) is a fully insured individual * * *,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A creative right is one which is conferred by statute as distinguished from one which stems from the common law. The nature of such a right, its quality and character, are dependent upon the statute creating it. The rule is well settled that where a statute creates a right, such as the one in this case, unknown to the common law and limits the time within which the right must be asserted, the limitation defines and controls the right and the right ceases to exist if not asserted within the time fixed in the statute therefor. ****** “Filing the application within the statutory time was a necessary incident of the right conferred by the act, and failing to comply therewith extinguished appellee’s right to the lump-sum benefits. It is true that the statute is a remedial one and should be liberally administered to effectuate the congressional purpose, but the congressional purpose must be ascertained from the clear language of the act. While a liberal interpretation should be indulged, such a poiicy does not warrant adopting a construction inconsistent with the clear wording of the act in order to prevent loss to a claimant resulting from failure to file an application as required by the act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The making of an application by an insured during his lifetime, or by some one on his behalf, is a necessary condition precedent to the creation of an obligation on the part of the United States under the statute."”
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.