Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 596 F.2d 600 - Fowler v. Califano

Fowler v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis

596 F.2d 600 · 1979

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
March 2016
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Purter v. Heckler (1985), Ferguson v. Schweiker (1985)

16 federal appellate · 8 district ·

39019791980199020002010decided

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 Cutler v. Weinberger · DePaepe v. Richardson · Stark v. Weinberger · James Hess, Jr. v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States of America · Gober v. Matthews

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

  1. “an ALJ is not free to set his own expertise against that of physicians who present competent medical evidence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As luck would have it however, the Social Security records containing Miss Fowler’s 1968 claim have been lost, destroyed, or consigned to a state of eternally suspended animation because of an inability to retrieve the information from the data storage system. The precise reason is not entirely clear from the record, but the end result is — Social Security no longer has the documents or copies containing the application and denial of the 1968 claim. In the Administration view expressed on appeal, this mishap simplifies the matter: since there is no record of the 1968 claim, there is no evidence from which it can be determined that error exists. Plaintiff argues it is unconscionable for the Administration to take a position that in effect permits it to profit by its own errors and we are inclined to agree. The Social Security Act is to be interpreted liberally to effectuate its beneficent purposes. Id. at 604 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Although findings by other agencies are not binding on the Secretary, they are entitled to weight and must be considered.”
    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.