Richardson v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 32 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 196 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), Cort v. Ash (1975)
67 federal appellate · 32 district · 8 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 404 (§ 204 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 421 (§ 221 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 425 (§ 225 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Goldberg v. Kelly · Greene v. McElroy · Underwood v. Ribicoff · Wheeler v. Montgomery
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 196 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the context of a comprehensive complex administrative program, the administrative process must have a reasonable opportunity to evolve procedures to meet needs as they arise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Finally, the post-termination reversal rate for disability determinations makes the asserted ‘objectivity’ even more doubtful. According to the Secretary’s figures for 1971, 37% of the requests for reconsideration resulted in reversal of the determination that disability had ceased. Moreover, 55% of the beneficiaries who exercised their right to a hearing won reversal. While, as the Secretary says, these figures may attest to the fairness of the system, Richardson v. Perales, supra, 402 U.S. 389 , 91 S.Ct. 1420 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 at 410 , they also appear to confirm that the Court’s reference in Goldberg to ‘the welfare bureaucracy’s difficulties in reaching correct decisions on eligibility,’ 397 U.S., at 264 n. 12, 90 S.Ct. 1011 , is fully applicable to the administration of the disability program.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Harrell v. Harder“If the Secretary, on the basis of information obtained by or submitted to him, believes that an individual entitled to [disability benefits] . . . may have ceased to be under a disability, the Secretary may suspend the payment of benefits . . . until it is determined . . . whether or not such individual's disability has ceased or until the Secretary believes that such disability has not ceased.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Califano v. Yamasaki
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.