Casey v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Rusk v. Cort · Wong Wing Hang v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Cappadora v. Celebrezze · Hobby v. Hodges · Filice v. Celebrezze
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * [N]or do we doubt that the rule of res judicata has some application to decisions of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (g), permits judicial review of a decision of the Secretary only if commenced within sixty days after notice of the decision is mailed to the claimant. Unless the claimant pursues this remedy, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (h) would apparently preclude recourse to the courts. The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decisions of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sliger v. Finch
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.