Hillhouse v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
715 F.2d 428 · 1983
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably Baker v. Heckler (1984), 969 F. Supp. 1167 - Laird v. Stilwill (1997)
13 federal appellate · 7 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 Richardson v. Perales · William Marbury v. James Madison · Brand v. Secretary of Department of Health Education and Welfare · Allegheny General Hospital v. National Labor Relations Board · Northcutt v. Califano
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While I concur wholly in everything said in the majority opinion, I think more is needed to be expressed. I have no wish to invite a confrontation with the Secretary. Yet, if the Secretary persists in pursuing her nonacquies cence in this circuit’s decisions, I will seek to bring contempt proceedings against the Secretary both in her official and individual capacities.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'[T]he regulations of [SSA] are not the supreme law of the land. "It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although we need not decide the issue in this case, we note the Secretary continues to operate under the belief that she is not bound by district or circuit court decisions. In its findings the Appeals Council states, “the Secretary is bound only by the provisions of the Social Security Act, regulations and rulings, and by United States Supreme Court decisions. A district or circuit court decision is binding only in the specific case it decides.” ... The result of this individual case should not obscure the fact that the regulations of HHS are not the supreme law of the land. “It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 , 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), and the Secretary will ignore that principle at his peril.”
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.