Latona v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
707 F.2d 79 · 1983
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2011
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi · Cappadora v. Celebrezze
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(g) Judicial Review Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days ... (h) Finality of Secretary’s Decision The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under [section 1331 et seq.] of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hile the Secretary can expand the period of time in which a claimant may seek judicial review of a decision encompassed by section [405(g) ], either by waiving the “finality” requirement, [citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 ], supra], or by waiving the sixty-day statute of limitations, [citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 , 95 S.Ct. 2457 , 45 L.Ed.2d 522 , supra], the Secretary cannot, by consent or otherwise, create subject matter jurisdiction to review a decision that is not a "final decision made after a hearing” within the meaning of [§ 405(g)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“rejected by Sanders, which excluded from the scope of [§ 405(g) ] all decisions that were not required to be preceded by a hearing, whether or not they were in fact preceded by a hearing.”
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.