Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 366 F.2d 132 - Gardner v. Hall

Gardner v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

366 F.2d 132 · 1966

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
October 1997
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 1997 · most notably Martin v. Sullivan (1990), Ludeking v. Finch (1970)

10 federal appellate · 5 district ·

1501966197019801990decided

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 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R. · Dvorak v. Celebrezze · Folsom v. O'Neal

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

  1. “The Secretary has, without question, the authority and the duty to pierce any fictitious arrangements among family members, and others, to shift salary payments from one to the other when the arrangement is not in accord with reality.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The findings of the Secretary are, of course, conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (g); Folsom v. O’Neal, 250 F.2d 946 (10th Cir.); Dvorak v. Celebrezze, 345 F.2d 894 (10th Cir.), and the inferences drawn from the facts are accorded like treatment. However, when as here, the record does not contain any evidence upon which a finding of receipt of wages may be made the decision of the Secretary must fail. The various theories adopted by the Secretary during the administrative and judicial proceedings to establish a constructive payment are not valid.””
    3 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.