Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 F.3d 1 - Mills v. Apfel

Mills v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis

244 F.3d 1 · 2001

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
March 2021
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 84 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Universal Health Services Inc. v. Thompson (2004), Liston v. Unum Corporation Officer Severance Plan (2003)

10 federal appellate · 84 district ·

640200120102020decided

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

Relies on Service v. Dulles · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Andrijevic v. Kelleran · Sims v. Apfel · Goodermote v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

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

  1. “(at least nominally), the Commissioner says that we may review only the ALJ decision, judging it solely on the evidence presented to the ALJ. Four circuits have taken this position, at least in part; by contrast, five circuits say that judicial review tests all evidence submitted to the ALJ and the Appeals Council, even if the latter declines to review the ALJ decision. Id., at 4 (emphasis in original). Finding both positions deficient, the court fashioned a distinct rule for application in this circuit. In creating that rule, the court observed that the Social Security Act”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an egregiously mistaken ground for this action.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[t]he impact of a no-waiver approach ... at the ALJ level ... could cause havoc, severely undermining the administrative process”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.