Hall v. Flemming’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 federal appellate · 9 district ·

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

1. ““ * * * Mere theoretical ability to engage in substantial gainful activity is not enough if no reasonable opportunity for this is available.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whitt v. Celebrezze · Long v. Celebrezze

2. ““In summary, it would appear that the claimant, following his injury in February, 1957 could have returned to his old job in the mines as certified by Dr. Prater. In any event there was no medical contraindication to the performance of many other types of work of a lighter nature. Many of the symptoms of which he now complains, such as shortness of breath and arthritis in multiple joints became significant only after he filed his application in December, 1957. Mr. Feldman, a specialist in vocational rehabilitation, testified that there are a number of light jobs that the claimant could have performed in the mines and for other employers in the area in which he lives. If the area of industrial opportunity is broadened to include the entire economy there would be even more jobs available to a person with the remaining capabilities of the claimant. Briefly, in answer to the first question propounded by the Court in the Hall and King cases, what can the claimant do ? the Hearing Examiner is of the opinion, and so finds, that as of December 18, 1957, and prior thereto, the claimant had the ability to engage in semiskilled, moderately arduous physical work not involving excessive bending or lifting. In answer to the second question, what employment opportunities are there for a man who can do only what the claimant can do? the Hearing Examiner is of the opinion, and so finds, that there were available to the claimant the many employment opportunities in the mining industry, in the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prewitt v. Ribicoff

3. “`Accepting this as we do, we think there was here no substantial evidence that would enable the Secretary to make any reasoned determination whether applicant was”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holbrook v. Ribicoff