Snead v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis
360 F.3d 834 · 2004
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Stormo v. Barnhart (2004), Eichelberger v. Barnhart (2004)
27 federal appellate · 12 district ·
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 Richardson v. Perales · Maryland v. Craig · Polaski v. Heckler · Landess v. Weinberger · Jerold H. Nevland v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Well-settled precedent confirms that the ALJ bears a responsibility to develop the record fairly and fully, independent of the claimant's burden to press his case.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unfortunately, we must begin this decision with an explanation for a delayed decision in this case. Docket records show that Snead properly appealed the district court’s decision on April 23, 2001. However, a communication failure between the district court and this court caused this case to sit in limbo for over two years, until it finally received an appellate docket number on June 3, . 2003. Our decision today comes just over seven full years after Snead first lost his benefits. As the Third Circuit has recently stated, “It should go without saying, but apparently bears repeating, that claimants seeking Social Security disability benefits deserve better.” Cadillac v. Barnhart, 84 Fed.Appx. 163 (3rd Cir.2003)(unpublished)(collecting cases of excessive delay). See also Ingram v. Barnhart, 303 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir.2002)(considering a social security claim that had received “inexcusably slow” treatment); Marsh v. Omaha Printing Co., 218 F.3d 854, 856 (8th Cir.2000)(noting the “harsh” result where a delay in processing a Social Security claim led to the claimant’s loss of health insurance); Schoolcraft v. Sullivan, 971 F.2d 81, 86 (8th Cir.l992)(de-scribing generally the ill effects of delaying social security benefits).”
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.