Ross v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
440 F.2d 690 · 1971
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Elkins v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1981), Moore v. Califano (1980)
10 federal appellate ·
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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Miracle v. Celebrezze · Massey v. Celebrezze · Lane v. Gardner · Colwell v. Gardner · Whitt v. Gardner
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. The decision of the hearing examiner issued February 3, 1969, is final as to the claimant’s entitlement to a period of disability and disability insurance benefits as of that date. “2. The claimant’s impairments are not so severe as to preclude light to sedentary work activity. “3. The claimant retains the residual physical capacity to engage in sedentary to light work activity within his former work experience and skills. “4. The evidence fails to establish that the claimant’s impairment prevented him from engaging in substantial gainful activity for any continuous period prior to the date of this decision which has lasted or can be expected to last at least 12 months. “5. The claimant was not under a ‘disability’, as defined in the Act, commencing at any time prior to the issuance of this decision.” (Tr-11).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““An individual . . . shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work. For purposes of the preceding sentence (with respect to any individual), ‘work which exists in the national economy’ means work which exists in signifi cant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.””
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.