Mitchell v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.3d 712 · 1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Cox v. Apfel (1998), Jones v. Callahan (1997)
3 federal appellate · 11 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 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Polaski v. Heckler · O'Leary v. Schweiker · Onstead v. Sullivan · Highfill 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The claimant attained age 18 on November 29, 2007 and was eligible for supplemental security income benefits as a child for the month preceding the month in which she attained age 18. The claimant was notified that she was found no longer disabled as of April 1, 2008, based on a redetermination of disability under the rules for adults who me new applications. 2. Since April 1, 2008, the claimant has had the following severe impairments: mild mental retardation; and post traumatic stress disorder (20 CFR 416.920(c)). 3. Since April 1, 2008, the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.925 and 416.926). 4. Since April 1, 2008, the claimant has had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: simple, 3-to-4 step instructions and tasks in unskilled work. 5. The claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment. 6. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965). 7. The claimant was born on November 30, 1989 and is a younger individual age 18-44. (20 CFR 416.963). 8. T”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Monroe v. Astrue
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.