Simms v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Cotter v. Harris · Smith v. Califano · Bertha M. Bittel v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · 440 F. Supp. 1014 - Champion v. Califano
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“combined effects must be considered for the Act seeks to administer relief to the whole man and not simply to serve as a vehicle for the separate clinical analysis of individual ailments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dorsey v. Heckler
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.