Johnson v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
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 Bowen v. Yuckert · Bowen v. City of New York · Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Massachusetts v. Podgurski Et Al. · Whitney v. Schweiker
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“finding of improper application rested squarely on [his] conclusion that the severity regulation was facially invalid--a conclusion completely undermined by Yuckert. For this reason, the court declines to grant relief to the plaintiff class based on the improper application of the severity standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Johnson v. Sullivan“Absent explicit Supreme Court approval of this dubious practice, this court sees no reason to disturb its earlier invalidation of the [no-]combination policy mandated by 20 CFR Secs. 404.1522 & 406.922 and SSR 82-55.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Johnson v. Sullivan“Bolstered by City of New York, this court once again rejects the Secretary's jurisdictional objections to the composition of the Johnson class.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Johnson v. Sullivan
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.