Cornella v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 504 (Equal Access to Justice Act)
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Perrin v. United States · Aaron v. Securities & Exchange Commission · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a judgment for costs, as enumerated in section 1920 of this title, but not including the fees and expenses of attorneys, may be awarded to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States or any agency and any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction of such action. A judgment for costs when taxed against the United States shall, in an amount established by statute, court rule, or order, be limited to reimbursing in whole or in part the prevailing party for the costs incurred by such party in the litigation. (d)(1)(A) Except as other specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action ... brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kerr v. Heckler“The Secretary found that Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work fit the requirements of the M-V Guidelines. The Secretary based these findings in part on a lack of objective clinical findings showing physical damage to Plaintiffs back . .. and the aforementioned evidence concerning Plaintiff’s work activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.