Pucci v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry · Kerner v. Flemming · Miracle v. Celebrezze
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The mere existence of a medically determinable impairment, whether or not it is one of those listed in the appendix, does not automatically carry the day for plaintiff so that he is thereby entitled to disability payments, (citing Cf. Celebrezze v. O’Brient, 323 F.2d 989, 992 (5th Cir. 1963); Gotshaw v. Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 840, 844 (4th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, Heath v. Celebrezze, 372 U.S. 945 , 83 S.Ct. 938 , 9 L.Ed.2d 970 (1963)). The regulations upon which plaintiff relies provide only that evidence of a listed impairment “can . justify” a finding of disability, (citing 20 C.F.B. § 404.1502 (a); § 404.1506(a) (1973)) not that such a finding is compelled. The additional element still must be found that the impairment results in “inability to engage in any substantial gainful aetivity.” . . . 369 F.Supp. at 1347 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Seiber v. Weinberger
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.