Munsinger v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.2d 1212 · 1983
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably McCuin v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1987), DeLong v. Heckler (1985)
21 federal appellate · 6 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. § 424A (§ 224 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · United States v. Larionoff · Richardson v. Belcher · Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co. · Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians v. Andrus
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the only reason for reopening is a change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon which the determination or decision was made.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Katz v. Sullivan · Fox v. Bowen“Section 404.987 does not expressly preclude reopening initiated by the administration, nor does it contain language that inescapably leads to that conclusion. Indeed, section 404.988 contains several conditions upon which a determination can be reopened which one would expect to be raised by the Secretary and not the claimant. See e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404 .-988(c)(1) (1981) (fraud or other fault). Accordingly, we conclude that sections 404.987-.995 permit the appeals council to reopen sua sponte a prior final decision within the circumstances outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.988 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“based upon the application of an incorrect legal standard or the misinterpretation of law existing at the time of the determination.”
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.