Ceglia v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably Cornella v. Schweiker (1984), Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services of United States (1984)
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Cataldo v. United States · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Miller v. Haynes · Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he law is clear that the opinion of a physician who has never treated or examined the claimant is entitled to little weight, and generally cannot serve as substantial evidence supporting a finding of nondisability when the record contains detailed contradictory opinions by physicians who have examined the claimant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[F]ees are to be based on the prevailing market rate for the kind and qualilty of services rendered. * Sic * * * * In general, consistent with the above limitations, the computation of attorney’s fees should be based on prevailing market rates without reference to the fee arrangement between the attorney and client. The fact that attorneys may be providing services at salaries or hourly rates below the standard commercial rates which attorneys might normally receive for services rendered is not relevant to the computation of compensation under the Act. In short, the award of fees is to be determined according to general professional standards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Agency's error forced the plaintiff and her attorneys into this court, and their persistance resulted in correction of the error. Denial of fees to her attorneys for their services is inconsistent with the purposes of the Social Security Act and the EAJA.”
2 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.