Heckler v. Ringer’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
602 federal appellate · 415 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,447 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Bowen v. City of New York (1986), Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians (1986)
602 federal appellate · 415 district · 66 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedRinger v. Schweiker (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395C (§ 1811 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395D (§ 1812 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395F (§ 1814 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395H (§ 1816 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Califano v. Sanders · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
Cited together with Weinberger v. Salfi · Mathews v. Eldridge · Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians · Shalala Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care Inc · Bowen v. City of New York
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 2,447 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(g) Judicial review Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow. Such ac tion shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business, or, if he does not reside or have his principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ....”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.”
32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“both the standing and the substantive basis for the presentation”
30 later decisions 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.