Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 F.3d 562 - Flores v. Shalala

Flores v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis

49 F.3d 562 · 1995

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
July 2022
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 11 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Thomas v. Barnhart (2002), Roe v. Anderson (1998)

45 federal appellate · 11 district ·

3701995200020102020decided

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 · Shalala v. Schaefer · Melkonyan v. Sullivan · Sullivan v. Hudson

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

  1. “In this circuit we apply a reasonableness standard in determining whether the government's position was substantially justified for purposes of the EAJA.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the position of the United States was substantially justified.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “by considering only the procedural issues on which the district court reversed.”
    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.