Baerga v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
500 F.2d 309 · 1974
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 34 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 193 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Cotter v. Harris (1981), Smith v. Califano (1981)
64 federal appellate · 34 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 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on United States v. Crescent Amusement Co. · United States v. Forness · Mode v. Celebrezze · Choratch v. Finch
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 193 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In our view an examiner’s findings should be as comprehensive and analytical as feasible and, where appropriate, should include a statement of subordinate factual foundations on which ultimate factual conclusions are based, so that a reviewing court may know the basis for the decision. This is necessary so that the court may properly exercise its responsibility under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) to determine if the Secretary’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cotter v. Harris · Smith v. Harris“what portions of the evidence he accepted or rejected.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Hearing Examiner is of the opinion that the evidence shows the claimant to be physically able to engage in various forms of substantial gainful activity although not of as strenuous a nature of some in which she has engaged in the past. There is no impairment of any special sense organs and no appreciable impairment of the claimant’s upper extremities. The restriction on the use of the claimant’s lower back and legs is partial only. There is evidence showing forms of employment which the claimant can engage in compatible with such restrictions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barats v. Weinberger
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.