Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 F.2d 761 - Roberson v. Ribicoff

Roberson v. Ribicoff’s Empirical Analysis

299 F.2d 761 · 1962

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
October 2013
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Celebrezze v. Bolas (1963), Miracle v. Celebrezze (1965)

41 federal appellate · 6 district ·

670196219701980199020002010decided

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 Kerner v. Flemming · Hall v. Flemming · King v. Flemming

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

  1. ““The administrative decision in this case does not measure up to our adopted standard. Not only was there no substantial evidence to show that appellant could engage in some substantial gainful activity; but, also, there was no evidence that employment was available to appellant in those fields of endeavor which the hearing examiner found him capable of handling. In fact, all the evidence points to the conclusion that appellant cannot engage in any substantial gainful work; and it is mere speculation to say that he can get a job as a furniture repairer * * (P. 763.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`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”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) there is nothing to indicate that this was the intent of the Congress; and (2) the argument makes no provision for the established superintending power of the Supreme Court.”
    2 later decisions 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.