Smith v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.2d 985 · 1981
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co. (1981), Lashley v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1983)
16 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 216 · 42 U.S.C. § 404 (§ 204 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Barrett v. United States · Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Co. · Cotter v. Harris · Smith v. Califano · Dobrowolsky 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“entails an examination for legal error of the legal components of those findings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a]lthough the burden is upon the claimant to prove his disability, due regard for the beneficent purposes of the legislation requires that a more tolerant standard be used in this administrative proceeding than is applicable in a typical suit in a court of record where the adversary system prevails.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he special nature of proceedings for disability benefits dictates extra care on the part of the agency in developing an administrative record and in explicitly weighing all evidence. We have pointed out that ‘[a] hearing on an application for benefits is not an adversary proceeding. The applicant is confronted with no adversary in the usual sense of that term. The Social Security Administration provides an applicant with assistance to prove his claims.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Knox v. Harris
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.