Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 608 F.2d 234 - Goodley v. Harris

Goodley v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

608 F.2d 234 · 1979

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
March 2017
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Walden v. Schweiker (1982), Loza v. Apfel (2000)

27 federal appellate · 2 district ·

38019791980199020002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Gaultney v. Weinberger · Williams v. Finch · Turner v. Califano

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

  1. “At least one circuit has held that where there is medical proof of disability, the government cannot deny disability benefits without some medical opinion that in fact the claimant is capable of gainful employment. O Bryan v. Weinberger, 511 F.2d 68 (6th Cir.1975). This Court has often reversed decisions of the Secretary finding no disability where the uncontradicted medical evidence indicates that the claimant is disabled.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “While such uncontradicted expert opinions on the ultimate issue are not binding on the administrative law judge, he may not arbitrarily choose to ignore uncontroverted medical testimony.... This court has often reversed decisions of the Secretary finding no disability where the uncontroverted medical testimony indicates that the plaintiff is disabled.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he findings and decision of the Secretary are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g). The reviewing court thus has a very limited role, and may not decide the facts anew or substitute its judgment for that of 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.