Cohen v. Perales’s Empirical Analysis
412 F.2d 44 · 1969
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Richardson v. Perales (1971), Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Commission (1989)
72 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 1006 · 5 U.S.C. § 556 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · Desist 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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“he will never be able to reach the questions involved, because on the next appeal, if there is one, the sole question may be the substantiality of the evidence, and not its admissibility.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bachowski v. Usery · Huie v. Bowen“shall be subject to review in the same manner as a judgment in other civil actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... since “substantial evidence” includes more than “uncorroborated hearsay” and “more than a mere scintilla,” the findings, to be valid, cannot be based on hearsay alone, nor upon hearsay corroborated by a mere scintilla. Founded upon these requirements, the test whether evidence is “substantial,” is whether, in the in dividual case before the court, there is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.