Pollard v. Halter’s Empirical Analysis
377 F.3d 183 · 2004
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Shalala v. Schaefer · House v. Mayo
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have observed, repeatedly, that evidence bearing upon an applicant’s condi tion subsequent to the date upon which the earning requirement was last met is pertinent evidence in that it may disclose the severity and continuity of impairments existing before the earning requirement date or may identify additional impairments which could reasonably be presumed to have been present.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For example, subsequent evidence of the severity of a claimant's condition may demonstrate that 'during the relevant time period, [the claimant's] condition was far more serious than previously thought.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) relevant to the claimant's condition during the time period for which benefits were denied and (2) probative.”
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.