Wall v. Folsom’s Empirical Analysis
239 F.2d 724 · 1957
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States · Fawcus Mach Co v. United States · Walker v. Altmeyer · United States v. Lalone
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In any event, we think the Referee as trier of fact, invested with the function of evaluating the evidence and drawing inferences therefrom, was justified in concluding that plaintiff had failed to show that the wage earner had left Illinois prior to September 11, 1940, and that the evidence failed to establish exactly when he did leave the state. We cannot make our own appraisal of the evidence. Section 205 (g) of the Act expressly makes the Secretary’s finding.conclusive if supported by substantial evidence (citing case). Of course, the finality accorded by Section 205(g) to the Administrative findings extends as well to the inferences from the evidence made by the Secretary if a substantial basis for them appears in the record. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The District Court case of Richards v. Social Security Administration, 76 F.Supp. 12 , does give support to the contentions of the plaintiff herein. However, we think Richards was wrongly decided. The conclusions we have reached are supported by Colbert v. Hobby, D.C., 130 F.Supp. 65 , affirmed sub. nom. Colbert v. Folsom, 2 Cir., 230 F.2d 846 , and Stuart v. Hobby, D.C., 128 F.Supp. 609 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It was the view of the District Court that it was not necessary for plaintiff to show a support order enforceable against the wage earner at the time of his death; that it was sufficient that a wage earner had been ordered to contribute to plaintiff’s support during his life time. In holding this view, the District Court was clearly in error.””
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.