Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 706 F.2d 564 - Bowman v. Heckler

Bowman v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

706 F.2d 564 · 1983

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
April 2022
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Sprague v. Bowen (1987), Murray v. Heckler (1983)

24 federal appellate · 3 district ·

29019831990200020102020decided

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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. Hunt · Smith v. Schweiker · Strickland v. Harris · Oldham 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In deciding whether to pretermit such dated work experience, ... the Secretary is entitled to consider the particular kind of work involved and the extent to which the skills and abilities required have in fact changed over the years.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Velma R. Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · Smith v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
  2. ““Our reliance on the opinion of the treating physician is based not only on the fact that he is employed to cure but also on his greater opportunity to observe and know the patient as an individual.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Marian L. Buzzard v. Donna E. Shalala , Secretary of Health and Human Services · 971 F. Supp. 1310 - Monroe v. Pacific Telesis Group Comprehensive Disability Benefits Plan
  3. “may not reweigh the evidence, substitute [our] own judgment for the Secretary's, or give vent to feelings of compassion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Winans v. Bowen · Winans 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.