Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 592 F.2d 1235 - Smith v. Califano

Smith v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis

592 F.2d 1235 · 1979

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably Hall v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (1979), Hall v. Harris (1981)

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

2701979198019902000decided

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

Relies on Taylor v. Weinberger · Arnold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · McLamore v. Weinberger

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Ordinarily, the testimony of a vocational expert is required in order to support a finding that alternate jobs which the claimant can do exist in the national economy. Smith v. Califano, 592 F.2d 1235, 1236 (CA 4—1976).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the conclusion that [claimant] can engage in a number of light manual and semi-skilled jobs is within the common knowledge and experience of ordinary men.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “burden of going forward and proving that the claimant can perform an alternative job which exists in the national economy shifts to the Secretary”
    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.