Leggett v. Chater’s Empirical Analysis
67 F.3d 558 · 1995
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Newton v. Apfel (2000), Brown v. Apfel (1999)
6 federal appellate ·
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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Curry v. Brown · Greenspan v. Shalala · Villa v. Sullivan · Fraga v. Bowen
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, as an individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found disabled, regardless of the medical findings; 2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; 3) whether the claimant meets or equals a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, as such an individual will be considered disabled without consideration of vocational factors; 4) if an individual is capable of performing the work they did in the past, a finding of not disabled must be made; and, 5) if an individual’s impairment precludes them from performing their past work, other factors, including age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if there is any work in the national economy that the individual can perform.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to two inquiries: (1) whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and (2) whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standard. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla and less than a preponderance. In applying the substantial evidence standard, the court scrutinizes the record to determine whether such evidence is present, but may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the Commissioner’s. Conflicts of evidence.are for the Commissioner, not the courts, to resolve. If the Commissioner’s fact findings are supported by substantial evidence, they are conclusive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is appropriate for the Court to consider the claimant’s daily activities when deciding the claimant’s disability status.”). 10 . Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 163 (5th Cir.1994). 11 . Chambliss v. Massanari, 269 F.3d 520, 522 (5th Cir.2001). 12 . Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 618-19 (5th Cir.1990). 13 . Falco, 27 F.3d at 163 . 14 . See Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 274 (6th Cir. 1997) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nix v. Barnhart
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.