Moran v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
569 F.3d 108 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Brault v. Social Security Administration (2012), Selian v. Astrue (2013)
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Albert Shaw v. Shirley S. Chater, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · Tejada v. Apfel
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
48 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is the well-established rule in our circuit “that the social security ALJ, unlike a judge in a trial, must on behalf of all claimants ... affirmatively develop •the record in light of the essentially non-adversarial nature, of a benefits proceeding.” Lamay v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 562 F.3d 503, 508-09 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) [, cert. denied, 559 U.S. 962 , 130 S.Ct. 1503 , 176 L.Ed.2d.l52 (2010) ]; accord Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377, 386 (2d Cir.2004), [amended on other grounds], 416 F.3d 101 (2d Cir.2005); Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34, 37 (2d Cir.1996); see also Gold v. Sec’y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 463 F.2d 38, 43 (2d Cir.1972) (pro se claimant).' Social Security disability determinations are “investigatory, or inquisitorial, rather than adversarial.” Butts, 388 F.3d at 386 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]t is the ALJ’s duty to investigate and develop the facts and develop the. arguments both for and against the.granting of benefits.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770, 774 (2d Cir.1999).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a plenary review of the administrative record to determine if there is substantial evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner's decision and if the correct legal standards have been applied.”
3 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.