Johnson v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2002
3 federal appellate · 8 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 1 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Laws v. Celebrezze · Underwood v. Ribicoff · Taylor v. Weinberger · Oppenheim v. Finch · McLamore v. Weinberger
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are four elements of proof to be weighed in determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s decision: (1) the objective medical facts; (2) the diagnoses and expert opinions of treating and examining physicians on subsidiary questions of fact; (3) subjective evidence of pain testified to by the claimant and corroborated by family and neighbors; (4) the claimant's educational background, work history and present age.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Proctor v. Schweiker“consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“which summary judgment procedure is particularly applicable”
1 later decision 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.