Shrader v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
631 F.2d 297 · 1980
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably McGowen v. Harris (1981), Cherry v. Heckler (1985)
31 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Richardson v. Perales · Califano v. Sanders · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Armstrong v. Manzo
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“mental illness prevented [claimant] from understanding the procedure necessary to obtain an evidentiary hearing after the denial of his prior pro se claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Constitutional questions obviously are unsuited to resolution in administrative hearing procedures and, therefore, access to the courts is essential to the decision of such questions.... [W]hen constitutional questions are in issue, the availability of judicial review is presumed, and we will not read a statutory scheme to take the 'extraordinary' step of foreclosing jurisdiction unless Congress' intent to do so is manifested by 'clear and convincing' evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Broome v. Heckler
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.