Polly v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
364 F.2d 969 · 1966
Citation profile
25 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 1996 · most notably DePaepe v. Richardson (1972), Branham v. Gardner (1967)
25 federal appellate ·
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. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Simpson v. United States · Thomas v. Celebrezze · Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry · Celebrezze v. Bolas · Butler v. Flemming
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A man may have to endure discomfort or pain and not be totally disabled; much of the best work in life goes on under such disabilities. The only work available to the insured must do more than hurt, it must substantially aggravate his malady.' 63 'On countless occasions, we have refused to consider the Theberge case as of any authority or consequence, and have expressly declared that we would not follow it. 64 'In Miracle v. Celebrezze, 351 F.2d 361 (CA.6) this court held: 65”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sayers v. Gardner · Floyd v. Finch“In this case, the objective of the Secretary appears to be to secure a strict, as opposed to a liberal, construction of the Social Security Act with regard to disability benefits. In fact, in his decision, the Hearing Examiner stated that `we conclude that Congress intended a strict construction of the disability provisions of the act.' This is contrary to our view that the statute should be liberally construed in favor of disability; and this view is supported by numerous authorities. 11”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davidson v. Gardner“Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner based his decision on an additional erroneous conception of the law which has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, in the reversal of many of these disability benefit cases. The Hearing Examiner, in his decision, relied upon * * * Theberge v. United States, 87 F.2d 697 (C.A.2) * * *. 293”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Floyd v. Finch
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.