Andrews v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
April 1989
most recently cited
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · City of Riverside v. Rivera · Blankenship v. Schweiker · Whitt 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he number of hours spent by an attorney on a case is only one factor for the court to consider_ [Plaintiff’s attorney] did the plaintiff a great service. Without that service, plaintiff probably would have recovered nothing of the defendant and would not be receiving disability benefits today. Courts must carefully consider the deterrent effect that whittling down fee agreements would have on whether future plaintiffs can find lawyers to take their cases. It would not serve the remedial intent of Congress if the court should arbitrarily limit counsel’s fee to some multiple of the number of hours he spent on the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Matter v. Bowen
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.