Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 363 F.2d 25 - Foss v. Gardner

Foss v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

363 F.2d 25 · 1966

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
April 1984
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 1984 · most notably Pauline Ginsburg v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1971), Grey v. Heckler (1983)

18 federal appellate · 1 district ·

150196619701980decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 210 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Cody v. Ribicoff · Folsom v. O'Neal · Palmer v. Celebrezze · Sabbagha v. Celebbezze

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

  1. “After the trial court had affirmed the Secretary's finding that the claimant was not an employee, she filed a motion requesting the court to determine that she was eligible for benefits as a self-employed person. The court denied the motion upon the basis claimant had also failed to establish that she qualified in such capacity. We are inclined to agree with the Government's contention that the self-employment issue could not properly be raised at that stage of the proceeding. The statutory pattern is for the review of the Secretary's action. The self-employment issue was not raised before the Secretary and hence, he had no opportunity to pass upon such issue. 36 "* * * We believe that the finding that the work was done in fulfillment of a family obligation rather than for money-making purposes would equally apply to the self-employment claim and that no purpose would be served in remanding to the Secretary for a finding upon the self-employment issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * We believe that the finding that the work was done in fulfillment of a family obligation rather than for money-making purposes would equally apply to the self-employment claim and that no purpose would be served in remanding to the Secretary for a finding upon the self-employment issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We have said very recently ‘Credibility determinations rest with the Secretary and the finality of his findings also extends to reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence.’ ””
    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.