Allen v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.3d 456 · 1995
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Gisbrecht v. Barnhart (2002), Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co. (1998)
22 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · City of Burlington v. Dague
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment. ... 'In the case of any such judgment, no other fee may be payable or certified for payment for such representation except as provided in this paragraph.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Widrig v. Apfel“[t]here is nothing inconsistent with the scheme of § 406(b)(1) in allowing the court to consider the existence of a contingency fee agreement, as long as it balances that factor with the others we have identified.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kay v. Apfel“strikes a balance between encouraging lawyers to represent disability claimants, and protecting the already inadequate stipend most claimants receive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kay v. Apfel
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.