Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 376 F.3d 551 - Howard v. Barnhart

Howard v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

376 F.3d 551 · 2004

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Pierce v. Underwood · Scarborough v. Principi · Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security · Flores v. Shalala · Libas, Ltd. v. United States

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

  1. “Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses ... incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Stated otherwise, a position is substantially justified when it has a “reasonable basis both in law and fact.” The fact that we found that the Commissioner’s position was unsupported by substantial evidence does not foreclose the possibility that the position was substantially justified. Indeed, “Congress did not ... want the ‘substantially justified’ standard to ‘be read to raise a presumption that the Government position was not substantially justified simply because it lost the case....’””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]lthough there may be flaws in an ALJ's decision, which require a reversal of the denial of benefits and a remand for further consideration, this does not automatically mean that the Commissioner's decision to defend the ALJ's decision to deny benefits was not 'substantially justified.'”
    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.