Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 646 F.2d 1075 - Smith v. Schweiker

Smith v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis

646 F.2d 1075 · 1981

Citation profile

122
cited by 122 later decisions
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Bloodsworth v. Heckler (1983), MaCgregor v. Bowen (1986)

43 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

82019811990200020102020decided

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 Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · DePaepe v. Richardson · Miracle v. Celebrezze

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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[u]nless there is good cause shown to the contrary, the testimony of the treating physician must be accorded substantial weight.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]t is not only legally relevant but unquestionably logical that the opinions, diagnosis, and medical evidence of a treating physician whose familiarity with the patient's injuries, course of treatment, and responses over a considerable length of time, should be given considerable weight.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) objective medical facts or clinical findings; (2) diagnoses of examining physicians; (3) subjective evidence of pain and disability as testified to by the claimant and corroborated by [other observers, including family members], and (4) the claimant's age, education, and work history.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.