Hancock v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
667 F.3d 470 · 2012
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Lax v. Astrue · Johnson v. Barnhart · Hunter v. Sullivan · Clark v. Apfel
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.
“Under this process, the Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of disability; (2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or equaled the requirements of a listed impairment; (4) could return to her past relevant work; and (5) if not, could perform any other work in the national economy.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reviewing for substantial evidence, [the Court should] not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Helms v. Berryhill“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Helms v. Berryhill
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.