McMillian v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
697 F.2d 215 · 1983
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Tallman v. ABF (Arkansas Best Freight) (1988), O'Leary v. Schweiker (1983)
56 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Richardson v. Perales · Brand v. Secretary of Department of Health Education and Welfare · Emil C. Timmerman v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of H.E.W., Kenneth Marks v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of H.E.W.
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dale v. Apfel · Wynn v. Schweiker“(1) that he has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which will either last for at least twelve months or result in death, (2) that he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity, and (3) that this inability is a result of his impairment”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“educational background, work history, and present age of the claimant; the subjective complaints of pain and claimant's description of physical activities and impairments; the medical opinion given by treating and examining physicians; the corroboration by third parties of claimant's physical impairments; the testimony of vocational experts when based upon proper hypothetical questions that fairly set forth the claimant's physical impairments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Douglas v. Bowen
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.