Kuehner v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
717 F.2d 813 · 1983
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Heckler v. Ringer (1984), Brown v. Grabowski (1990)
20 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Bell v. Hood · Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi · Califano v. Yamasaki
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is unrealistic to expect that the Secretary would consider substantial changes ... at the behest of a single aid recipient raising a constitutional challenge in an adjudicatory context.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Indeed at oral argument the Justice Department attorney appearing for the [Secretary] conceded that the Social Security Administration pursues, with respect to certain rulings by courts of appeals, a policy of nonacquiescence. The Social Security Administration has, for example, adopted such a policy with respect to an April 16, 1981 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [Finnegan v. Matthews, 641 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir.1981)] holding that disability benefits could not be terminated unless it showed that there was a material improvement in the claimant’s medical condition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Decisions in different contexts have emphasized that the nature of the claim being asserted and the consequences of deferment of judicial review are important factors in determining whether a statutory requirement of finality has been satisfied.... [Despite variant policy considerations in the different contexts,] the core principle that statutorily created finality requirements should, if possible, be construed so as not to cause crucial collateral claims to be lost and potentially irreparable injuries to be suffered remains applicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.