Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 603 F.2d 666 - Wright v. Califano

Wright v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis

603 F.2d 666 · 1979

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
May 1996
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 1996 · most notably Denberg v. United States (1983), Cole v. Stevenson (1980)

14 federal appellate · 3 district ·

300197919801990decided

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 Edelman v. Jordan · United States v. Testan · Gerstein v. Pugh · Weinberger v. Salfi · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson

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

  1. “42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g). 44 In Wright, this court found that reversal of the Secretary's decision as to eligibility necessarily required the award of”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “doctrine of sovereign immunity did not require more.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “relief. Moreover, this court noted that the language of the Act was mandatory, allowing up to twelve months of benefits preceding the date of the application. Further, we relied on section 204, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 404, which directs the Secretary to make proper adjustments in finding that Congress intended that a claimant receive the benefits to which he is entitled under the Act, including”
    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.