Jimenez v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis
523 F.2d 689 · 1975
Citation profile
28 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2000 · most notably General Motors Corporation Engine Interchange Litigation Oswald v. General Motors Corporation (1979), United States v. Jackson (1977)
28 federal appellate ·
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. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111 · 42 U.S.C. § 404 (§ 204 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 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 Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Weinberger v. Salfi · Linkletter v. Walker · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Salfi makes it clear that the 'made after a hearing' language (of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)) may be disregarded if the Secretary's decision rested on a legal ground that did not necessitate a hearing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]s soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the decision to be applied nonretro-actively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed . . .. Second, it has been stressed that “we must * * weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” . Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactiyity.””
1 later decision 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.