Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 606 F.3d 46 - Genier v. Astrue

Genier v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis

606 F.3d 46 · 2010

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
May 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Bowen v. Yuckert · Perez v. Chater · Marcus v. Califano · Johnson v. Bowen

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

  1. “Even where the administrative record may also adequately support contrary findings on particular issues, the ALJ's factual findings must be given conclusive effect so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hen determining a claimant's RFC, the ALJ is required to take the claimant's reports of ... limitations into account, 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 ; see McLaughlin v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare , 612 F.2d 701 , 704-05 (2d Cir. 1980), but is not required to accept the claimant's subjective complaints without question; he may exercise discretion in weighing the credibility of the claimant's testimony in light of the other evidence in the record. Marcus v. Califano , 615 F.2d 23 , 27 (2d Cir. 1979).”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the extent to which [the claimant's] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence”
    14 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.