Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 700 F.2d 865 - Dietsch v. Schweiker

Dietsch v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis

700 F.2d 865 · 1983

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
May 2019
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Heckler v. Ringer (1984), City of New York v. Heckler (1984)

30 federal appellate · 6 district ·

4401983199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Udall v. Tallman · Weinberger v. Salfi · Ellis v. Blum · White v. Mathews

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

  1. “Assuming for the moment that plaintiffs request for review was mailed within the 60-day period, then, if mailing constitutes filing, the Secretary erroneously dismissed plaintiffs timely request for review. Plaintiffs challenge is a procedural one: he seeks to compel the Appeals Council to perform its duty with respect to a timely request for review[.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Cjounsel for [Dietsch] has sworn in an affidavit, which was not before the Appeals Council, that the request was mailed on ... the last day of the filing period. Since on this appeal the Secretary urged only that the mailing did not constitute filing, an argument which we reject, we do not now know if the Secretary accepts counsel’s credibility on this critical fact. If he does not, then an administrative record with appropriate findings must be developed to establish when the request was mailed.”
    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.