Brown v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
649 F.3d 193 · 2011
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Plummer v. Apfel · Wayne R. Hartranft v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner Social Security Administration · Monsour Medical Center v. Heckler · Morales v. Apfel · Burns v. Barnhart
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any party may object to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The Judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The Judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to.the Magistrate Judge with instructions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have provided that § 636(b)(1) requires district courts to review such objections de novo unless the objection is 'not timely or not specific .'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellant's Appendix,” filed on July 7, 2016. 3 . The District Court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . 4 . The ALJ noted that this conclusion was also consistent with consultative examiner Andrews' opinion, to which the ALJ also gave”
1 later decision 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.