Easley v. Finch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 10 district ·

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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In enacting the Social Security Act, Congress deliberately imposed severe restrictions on the power of the federal courts to review administrative decisions made in the implementation of the Act. No finding of fact may be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence. No judicial review of an administrative decision can be obtained unless an action is filed within sixty days after the claimant is given notice of an adverse final decision by the Secretary. [ 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g)], A final decision, which is not reviewed promptly, is binding on the claimant. [ 42 U.S.C. § 405 (h)]. “Taken together, these statutory restrictions on the power of federal courts to review Social Security matters necessarily imply the existence of an administrative form of the res judicata doctrine. If a claimant has no right to judicial review of a decision denying him benefits unless he brings an action within sixty days of the denial, he has no right to regain it, or indefinitely extend it, by a perfunctory reassertion of his claim after expiration of the time to seek judicial review * * *”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 365 F. Supp. 524 - Spratley v. Weinberger · 334 F. Supp. 344 - Criddle v. Richardson

2. ““[3] The only justification advanced by the District Court for allowing judicial review in this case, apart from the circular statement that there had been none previously, is that Easley was not represented by counsel at the hearing on his second application for benefits. We think this an insufficient basis for disregarding the principle of repose. “[4] A hearing on an application for benefits is not an adversary proceeding. The applicant is confronted with no adversary in the usual sense of that term. The Social Security Administration provides an applicant with assistance to prove his claim. Here, the Administration provided a ' comprehensive medical examination. There is no reason to suspect any influence which would compromise its objectivity. Although only about five per cent of all applicants are represented by counsel at the initial and reconsideration stages, the majority of claims are allowed. This hardly suggests the existence of widespread unfairness to applicants unrepresented by counsel or of procedural or other hurdles which are insurmountable by laymen. The contrary, in fact, is demonstrated by this case. * ® * ” 431 F.2d at 1353.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Teal v. Mathews · 363 F. Supp. 262 - Hess v. Weinberger