O'Leary v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
710 F.2d 1334 · 1983
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Gallant v. Heckler (1984), Gavin v. Heckler (1987)
56 federal appellate · 14 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
Relies on McCoy v. Schweiker · Brand v. Secretary of Department of Health Education and Welfare · Landess v. Weinberger · McMillian 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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“hypothetical questions posed to vocational experts must precisely set out all of the claimant's impairments.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“prove that the claimant retains the capacity to do other kinds of work, a burden which includes the duty to establish by medical evidence that the claimant has the requisite residual functional capacity.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the claimant’s characteristics do not match those in the regulations — either because the claimant is suffering from a non-exertional impairment or is precluded from doing the full range of a particular work classification or for any other reason — the Secretary is required to pro duce vocational expert testimony concerning whether there are jobs available that a person with the claimant’s particular characteristics can perform.”
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.