Winston v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · Eisenstadt v. Baker · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · Barrett v. United States
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]eurological residuals of exposure to noxious fumes and dust and loud noise, also sciatic neuritis, and traumatic anxiety psychoneurosis, attributable to exposure at work.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]ased on the above findings, it is felt that [plaintiff's] prospects for success would be virtually nil in any employment requiring complex oral communication, fine perceptual motor skills, rapid cognitive processing of large amounts of information, or basic reading, arithmetic, and written language skills.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Sullivan“perceptual rotations, fragmentations, simplifications, integration problems, and other gross distortions observed in this client's Bender Gestalt Test record are suggestive of a very severe visual-motor integration problem ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Sullivan
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.