Marion v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
359 F.2d 175 · 1966
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently October 2005 · most notably Leonard H. Garrett v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1972), Adams v. Weinberger (1977)
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
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 State of Minnesota Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County Minn · Celebrezze v. Bolas · Blocker v. United States · Celebrezze v. Warren
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) that there be a medically determinable physical or mental impairment of the type specified by the statute, (b) that there be an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity, and (c) that the inability be by reason of the impairment; that substantial gainful activity is that which is both substantial and gainful and within the claimant’s capability, realistically judged by his education, training and experience; and that the emphasis is on the particular claimant’s capabilities and on what is reasonably possible, not on what is conceivable or theoretical.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The hearing examiner based his conclusion that the applicant was not entitled to disability benefits primarily upon the social security regulation having to do with personality disorders. This is 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519 (c) (2) (iii), 42 U.S.C.A. Appendix p. 494. The examiner ruled that the applicant fell into this category; that his disorder was not associated with a severe psychoneurosis or psychosis; and that he had no other impairment which would preclude any substantial gainful activity if he were not confined.”
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.