Walston v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
381 F.2d 580 · 1967
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Garner v. Heckler (1984), Houston v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1984)
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
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 Ber v. Celebrezze · Miracle v. Celebrezze · Massey v. Celebrezze · Teeter v. Flemming
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he fact that an appellant can still perform simple functions, such as driving, grocery shopping, dish washing and floor sweeping, does not necessarily indicate that this appellant possesses an ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“is in the realm of speculation and reversible error in the absence of countervailing substantial evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The claimant met the special earnings requirements on February 5, 1977, the alleged onset date and continued to meet them until March 31, 1977, but not thereafter. 2. The claimant suffered from a longstanding history of a heart murmur and hypothyroidism through march 31, 1977, [sic] however, these impairments did not significantly limit her ability to perform basic work-related functions through March 31, 1977. 3. Pursuant to Regulations No. 404.-1520(c) and 404.1521 and the above finding, the claimant’s impairments were not severe, as they did not significantly limit her ability to perform work-related functions through March 31, 1977. 4. Since the claimant did not have a severe impairment through March 31, 1977, she may not be considered disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, as amended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kenney v. Heckler
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.