Peggy Mayes v. Larry G. Massanari, Commissioner of Social Security’s Empirical Analysis
276 F.3d 453 · 2001
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 186 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Connett v. Barnhart (2003), McLeod v. Astrue (2010)
21 federal appellate · 15 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
Relies on Mills v. United States · Halray Harman v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · Silva Tonapetyan v. William A. Halter, Commissioner of Social Security Administration · Booz 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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Substantial evidence' is `more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We need not decide whether good cause is required for submission of new evidence to the Appeals Council, as [the claimant] conceded in her briefs that good cause was indeed required. In a petition for rehearing, which we deny, [the claimant] raises for the first time the argument that 20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (b) (2001) requires the Appeals Council to receive new evidence without regard to the issue of good cause. Citing Ramirez v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir.1993), [the claimant] belatedly argues that good cause is required only when new evidence is submitted to a district court. Mayes misapprehends Ramirez. Because the parties agreed that the new evidence submitted for the first time to the Appeals Council should be considered, id. at 1451-52, Ramirez does not address whether submissions to the Appeals Council are or are not subject to the good cause requirement.”
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.