Ocasio v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983), Cornella v. Schweiker (1984)
18 federal appellate · 10 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 26 U.S.C. § 501 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Maher v. Gagne · Gagne v. Maher · 533 F. Supp. 348 - Photo Data, Inc. v. Sawyer · 531 F. Supp. 1149 - Berman v. Schweiker · United States Heydt v. Citizens State Bank
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this sub-chapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment, and the Secretary may, notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(i) of this title, certify the amount of such fee for payment to such attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past-due benefits. In case of any such judgment, no other fee may be payable or certified for payment for such representation except as provided in this paragraph.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tant v. Heckler · Vega v. Schweiker“... this section is not intended to replace or supercede any existing fee shifting statutes such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Civil Rights Acts, and the Voting Rights Act in which Congress has indicated a specific intent to encourage vigorous enforcement, or to alter the standards or the case law governing those Acts. It is intended to apply only to cases (other than tort cases) where fee awards against the government are not already authorized, [cited from H.R.Rep. No. 1418, supra at 4997]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress intended the EAJA to expand the potential for fee awards under certain circumstances, not to freeze the absence of counsel fee provisions in existing statutes. In this case where there is no applicable fee-shifting provision in the Clean Water Act, acceptance of EPA’s reading of the EAJA would create “a no-man’s land contrary to clearly expressed Congressional purposes.””
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.