Leftwich v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
377 F.2d 287 · 1967
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Stone v. Heckler (1985), Chico v. Schweiker (1983)
17 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Thomas v. Celebrezze · Berry v. United States · Flemming v. Booker · Roberson v. Ribicoff · Farley 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]ot whether Leftwich by willpower can stay on his feet yet another day-but whether objectively and in the totality of circumstances, including especially his afflictions, he is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Substantial medical evidence establishes that claimant was totally and permanently disabled. In spite of such disablement, he chose to work every day to support his family. The statute defines disability as an 'inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity.' In this case, the emphasis properly is on inability. We think the Congress did not intend to exclude from the benefits of the Act those disabled persons who because of character and a sense of responsibility for their dependents are most deserving.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Finch · Ingles v. Finch“an individual who does substantial gainful work despite an impairment or impairments that otherwise might be considered disabling is not disabled for purposes of establishing a period of disability or for social security benefits based on disability during any period in which such work is performed. The * * * bill, therefore, specifically provides that where the work or earnings of an impaired individual demonstrate ability to engage in substantial gainful activity * * *, the individual is not disabled within the meaning of Title II of the Social Security Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An individual’s earnings from work activities averaging in excess of $125 (formerly $100) a month shall be deemed to demonstrate his ability to engage in substantial gainful activity in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 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.