Schauer v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
675 F.2d 55 · 1982
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 15229b v. Dar Lester, Mongeur v. Heckler (1983)
19 federal appellate · 3 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. § 301 (§ 1 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Parker v. Harris · Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Diagnosis of a claimant's condition can properly, of course, occur after the onset of the impairment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the ALJ has a 'duty ... to scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts....' " Hankerson v. Harris, 636 F.2d 893 , 895 (2d Cir.1980) (quoting Gold v. Secretary of HEW, supra, 463 F.2d at 43). 14 As we recently noted in Schauer v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 55 (2d Cir.1982), the concept of burden of proof is "particularly elusive in cases involving social security benefits,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“■ ... not withstanding the various courts’ [diverse] statements [of the proper allocation of burden in a termination case], we are unaware of any case in which the Secretary’s termination of benefits previously awarded has been upheld in the absence of substantial evidence that the recipient’s disability had ended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Colon v. Heckler
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.