Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 347 F.3d 990 - Keys v. Barnhart

Keys v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

347 F.3d 990 · 2003

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
July 2021
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Craft v. Astrue (2008), Skarbek v. Barnhart (2004)

27 federal appellate · 1 district ·

530200320102020decided

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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Mead Corp. · Auer v. Robbins · Christensen v. Harris County · Sullivan v. Zebley

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

  1. “‘agency briefs, at least below the Supreme Court level, normally are not reviewed by the members of the agency itself; and it is odd to think of Congress delegating lawmaking power to unreviewed staff decisions.’”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Marked” and “extreme” limitations in a given domain can be established by standardized test scores that are two or three standard deviations, respectively, below the mean — that is, either in the lowest 2.5 percent of the distribution or the lowest 1 percent — provided, however, that the scores are representative of day-to-day functioning. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416 .926a(e)(2)(iii), 416.926a(e)(3)(iii). Test scores are not conclusive, therefore, and the bulk of 20 C.F.R. § 416 .926a is devoted to “general descriptions of each domain” against which a claimant’s functioning may be compared; and so when the dust settles, the agency retains substantial discretion!)]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “takes personal responsibility for the decision.” See David J. Barron & Elena Kagan, Chevron’s Nondelegation Doctrine, 2001 Sup.Ct. Rev. 201 , 204. Applying this limitation to Auer-Seminole Rock deference would advance the same values of administrative”
    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.