Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 636 F.2d 893 - Hankerson v. Harris

Hankerson v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

636 F.2d 893 · 1980

Citation profile

167
cited by 167 later decisions
June 2018
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 11 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 167 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Mongeur v. Heckler (1983), Johnson v. Bowen (1987)

39 federal appellate · 11 district ·

10101980199020002010decided

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. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382E (§ 1616 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 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 Parker v. Harris · Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Marcus v. Califano · Cutler v. Weinberger · Bastien 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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'to scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts,'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'the basis for establishing disability' " and since it was important in allowing the administrative law judge to effectively exercise his "discretion to evaluate the credibility of (the) claimant (in order to) arrive at an independent judgment.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(3)(A) An individual shall be considered to be disabled for purposes of this subchapter if he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months (or, in the case of a child under the age of 18, if he suffers from any medically determinable physical or mental impairment of comparable severity). "(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), an individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if 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.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.