Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 699 F.2d 426 - Simonson v. Schweiker

Simonson v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis

699 F.2d 426 · 1983

Citation profile

91
cited by 91 later decisions
August 2010
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 13 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Lashley v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1983), Cornella v. Schweiker (1984)

55 federal appellate · 13 district ·

6901983199020002010decided

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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · McCoy v. Schweiker · Brand v. Secretary of Department of Health Education and Welfare · Landess v. Weinberger · Tennant 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “ALJ may not disregard a claimant's subjective complaints of pain solely because there exists no evidence in support of such complaints.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “precisely set out the claimant's particular physical and mental impairments.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The ALJ may, of course, make credibility findings. In this case, however, the ALJ disbelieves [the plaintiff] primarily because the medical reports do not provide an objective basis for [his] subjective reports of pain. The AU may not circumvent the above cited cases under the guise of a credibility finding. He may disbelieve [the plaintiff's] subjective reports of pain because of inherent inconsistencies or other circumstances, but not solely because [the plaintiff] cannot show the exact physiological source of his pain.”
    2 later decisions 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.