Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 684 F.2d 310 - Cox v. Schweiker

Cox v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis

684 F.2d 310 · 1982

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably Ferrero v. Associated Materials Inc. (1991), Jackson v. People's Republic Of China (1986)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

320198219902000decided

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 United Steelworkers of America v. Weber · Welsh II v. United States · Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Trimble v. Gordon · Mathews v. Lucas

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

  1. “status as a potential recipient of survivor's benefits [is] fixed at the time he [applies], and that the relevant state law made applicable pursuant to section 416(h)(2)(A) is the law in force at the time of his application.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the illegally deprived class of illegitimate children ... the benefits of inheriting the same as legitimate children in similar circumstances.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Had the Georgia law in 1977 [been constitutional] there is every reason to believe that a court would have declared Michael the son of James Appling. And had this been done, Michael’s application for survivor’s benefits would never have been denied. The only reason for it not having been done being an unconstitutional one, we are bound to eradicate the constitutional flaw. Once eradicated, Michael’s right to inherit and therefore his right to benefits, are beyond question.”
    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.