Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 476 U.S. 340 - Bowen v. Owens

Bowen v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

178
cited by 178 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

89 federal appellate · 15 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 178 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Bowen v. Gilliard (1987), Lyng v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers (1988)

89 federal appellate · 15 district · 16 state decisions

7701986199020002010decided

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. § 1252 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Flemming v. Nestor · United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz · Schweiker v. Wilson · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer

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

  1. “[g]overnmental decisions to spend money [Social Security funds] to improve the general public welfare in one way and not in another are 'not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] legislature 'may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phrase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification.”
    4 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.