Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 357 F.3d 697 - Scheck v. Barnhart

Scheck v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

357 F.3d 697 · 2004

Citation profile

130
cited by 130 later decisions
April 2021
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart (2005), Young v. Barnhart (2004)

21 federal appellate · 8 district ·

670200420102020decided

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 Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · Bowen v. Yuckert · Polaski v. Heckler · Arkansas v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “You must provide medical evidence showing that you have an impairment and how severe it is during the time you say that you were disabled.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1) is the plaintiff currently unemployed; 2) does the plaintiff have a severe impairment; 3) does the plaintiff have an impairment that meets or equals one of the impairments listed as disabling in the Commissioner’s regulations; 4) is the plaintiff unable to perform his past relevant work; and 5) is the plaintiff is unable to perform any other work in the national economy.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “After careful consideration of the evidence, I find that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment.”
    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.