Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 530 U.S. 103 - Sims v. Apfel

Sims v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

1,377
cited by 1,377 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

231 federal appellate · 281 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,377 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Woodford v. Ngo (2006), Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice (2006)

231 federal appellate · 281 district · 11 state decisions

7340200020102020decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1881 · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 47 U.S.C. § 405 · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Richardson v. Perales · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Weinberger v. Salfi

Cited together with Richardson v. Perales · Bowen v. Yuckert · United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 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 1,377 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he desirability of a court imposing a requirement of issue exhaustion depends on the degree to which the analogy to normal adversarial litigation applies in a particular administrative proceeding.”
    25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “arguments both for and against granting benefits.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[c]laimants who exhaust administrative remedies need not also exhaust issues in a request for review by the Appeals Council in order to preserve judicial review of those issues.”
    14 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.