Gardner v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis
362 F.2d 917 · 1966
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 18 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Cagle v. Califano (1981), Reyes v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (1973)
25 federal appellate · 18 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 Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Substantial evidence [is] ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ . . . ‘[I]t must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.’ ” (footnotes omitted)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the outset, we should comment that although there is no rule or statute re quiring a federal district judge to express his reasons for a decision in this type of case, it is certainly a better judicial practice for him to do so. This is of particular importance in cases where the trial judge reverses the decision of the Secretary, as was done here because we have no other means of knowing the legal basis of the court’s decision in such cases.”
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.