Raines v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
44 F.3d 1355 · 1995
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Penny (1995), Jackson v. Chater (1996)
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 2412 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Pierce v. Underwood · Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation · James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia · Shalala v. Schaefer
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e think that the directive of the Supreme Court in Pierce makes clear that the special skill requirement of the statute can be defined in terms of either an identifiable practice specialty not easily acquired by a reasonably competent attorney or special non-legal skills such as knowledge of a foreign language.... Pierce directs the courts to recognize that certain practice areas require more advanced and specialized legal skills than those possessed or easily acquired by most members of the bar. In our view, Pierce acknowledges that there will be cases in which such specialized training will be necessary. Nevertheless, we believe that such cases will be the exceptional situation and that, by providing for the “specialized case,” Congress did indeed contemplate such a situation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the exception for “limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved” must refer to attorneys “qualified for the proceedings” in some specialized sense, rather than just in their general legal competence. We think it refers to attorneys having some distinctive knowledge or specialized sMll needful for the litigation in question—as opposed to an extraordinary level of the general lawyerly knowledge and ability useful in all litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the appropriate inquiry is whether the individual case presents such an unusual situation that it requires someone of specialized training and expertise unattainable by a competent attorney through a diligent study of the governing legal principles.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hyatt v. Barnhart
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.