639 F. Supp. 2d 836 - Smith v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 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 · Thomas v. Arn · Bowen v. Yuckert · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Wilkinson Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al. v. Dotson et al.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) 'whether the persuasive authorities employ logical reasoning'; (2) their internal consistency; (3) and 'whether they are consistent with a plain and sensible reading of any applicable ... statutes (taking into account, when necessary and appropriate to clarify any ambiguity, the legislative history and intent).'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute.'”
1 later decision 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.