Johnson v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
612 F.2d 993 · 1980
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably Bloodsworth v. Heckler (1983), Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (2007)
56 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · DePaepe v. Richardson
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t has been held that a physical limitation which prevents a claimant from working a full workday, minus a reasonable time for lunch and breaks, constitutes a disability within the meaning of the [Social Security] Act.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) objective medical facts or clinical findings; (2) diagnoses of examining physicians; (3) subjective evidence of pain and disability as testified to by the claimant and corroborated by [other observers, including family members], and (4) the claimant's age, education, and work history.”
4 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.