Jensen v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.2d 1227 · 1983
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce (2001), Koerpel v. Heckler (1986)
16 federal appellate · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 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 · Weinberger v. Salfi · Hagans v. Lavine · Weaver v. Graham · Flemming v. Nestor
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Circuit has followed Eldridge in holding that a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a Social Security regulation under § 405(g) as long as the challenge is collateral to the substantive claim and presents a colorable constitutional claim. Gipson v. Harris, 633 F.2d 120, 122 (8th Cir.1980); see Himmler v. Calif ano, 611 F.2d 137, 148 (6th Cir.1979). Eldridge requires a claim to be collateral to the substantive issue of entitlement and to present a colorable constitutional challenge. Whether a claim is collateral to the substantive claim of entitlement depends on whether the claim is unrelated to any controverted factual question of entitlement. Here, under § 423(f) Jensen is clearly not entitled to benefits. Further, there is no dispute that Jensen meets all other requirements of the Act and would, but for his incarceration, be receiving benefits. Like the situation in Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 331-32 , 96 S.Ct. at 900-01 , and unlike that in Salfi, 422 U.S. at 762 , 95 S.Ct. at 2465 , there was no reason besides the challenged statute for suspending benefits, and no alternative basis for continuing to provide benefits. We conclude that Jensen’s claim is collateral to his substantive right to Social Security benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, no monthly benefits shall be paid under this section or under section 423 of this title to any individual for any month during which said individual is confined in a jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility, pursuant to his conviction of an offense which constituted a felony under applicable law, unless such individual is actively and satisfactorily participating in a rehabilitation program which has been specifically approved for such individual by a court of law, and, as determined by the Secretary, is expected to result in such individual being able to engage in substantial gainful activity upon release and within a reasonable time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jensen v. Heckler
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.