Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 707 F.2d 1284 - Smith v. Heckler

Smith v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

707 F.2d 1284 · 1983

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
February 2006
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2006 · most notably Williams v. Bowen (1988), Washington v. Shalala (1994)

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

240198319902000decided

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. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 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)

Relies on Wiggins v. Schweiker · White v. Hill · Tartt v. Negus · Roberts v. Roberts

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

  1. “'[f]ailure to apply the correct legal standard or to provide this court with a sufficient basis to determine that appropriate legal principles have been followed is grounds for reversal.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion' " that the plaintiff is or is not entitled to benefits. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216-17, 8 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). This deferential standard of review applies only to findings of fact, however, and "no similar presumption of validity attaches to the Secretary's conclusions of law, including the determination of proper standards to be applied in reviewing claims.”
    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.