King v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
564 F.3d 978 · 2009
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Thompson v. Bowen · Ellis v. Barnhart · Snead v. Barnhart · Lucy v. Chater · Hepp v. Astrue
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Objective tests of physical ability, reflected in the Guidelines, may resolve the issue of whether the claimant is disabled by reason of pain. A claimant with a severe mental impairment, however, may be incapable of holding any job, even if the claimant’s body is sound and his or her physical ability unimpaired by pain or any other limiting condition. As we read Thompson, it does not apply to claimants who, like Wheeler, have been found to have severe mental impairment, and we distinguish Thompson from the present case on that basis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brock v. Astrue“The five-part test is whether the claimant is (1) currently employed and (2) severely impaired; (3) whether the impairment is or approximates a listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and if not, (5) whether the claimant can perform any other kind of work.” King v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 978 , 979 n. 2 (8th Cir.2009). 3 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Byes v. Astrue
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.