Sullivan v. Zebley’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
155 federal appellate · 219 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,437 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Mead Corp. (2001), Sims v. Apfel (2000)
155 federal appellate · 219 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 10 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
reviewedZebley ex rel. Zebley v. Bowen (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bowen v. Yuckert · Bowen v. City of New York · Heckler v. Campbell
Cited together with Richardson v. Perales · Bowen v. Yuckert · Heckler v. Campbell · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board
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 1,437 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For a claimant to qualify for benefits by showing that his unlisted impairment, or combination of impairments, is 'equivalent' to a listed impairment, he must present medical findings equal in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar listed impairment.”
42 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“medically determinable physical or mental impairment of comparable severity”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first two steps involve threshold determinations that the claimant is not presently working, and has an impairment which is of the required duration and which significantly limits his ability to work. In the third step, the medical evidence of the claimant’s impairment is compared to a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. If the claimant’s impairment matches or is “equal” to one of the listed impairments, he qualifies for benefits without further inquiry. If the claimant cannot qualify under the listings, the analysis proceeds to the fourth and fifth steps. At these steps, the inquiry is whether the claimant can do his own past work or any other work that exists in the national economy, in view of his age, education, and work experience. If the claimant cannot do his past work or other work, he qualifies for benefits.”
17 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.