Slusser v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
557 F.3d 923 · 2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Jerold H. Nevland v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · Amir v. St. Louis University · Gonzales v. Barnhart · Neal v. Barnhart · Falcone v. University of Minnesota
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[RJeview of the Commissioner’s denial of benefits is limited to whether the decision is “supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.” Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir.2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Substantial evidence exists if “a reasonable mind would find such evidence adequate.” Id. Substantial evidence is “less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the ALJ’s decision.” Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir.2006). Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla. Neal v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 685, 688 (8th Cir.2005). We may not reverse merely because substantial evidence may also support an opposite conclusion. Nevland, 204 F.3d at 857 .”
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.