Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 718 F.2d 104 - Guthrie v. Schweiker

Guthrie v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis

718 F.2d 104 · 1983

Citation profile

141
cited by 141 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 141 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably Sullivan v. Hudson (1989), Sullivan v. Finkelstein (1990)

47 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions

10301983199020002010decided

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. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 504 (Equal Access to Justice Act)

Relies on McQuiston v. Marsh · Tyler Business Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Berman v. Schweiker · Ocasio 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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]n the district court the government’s position generally is established at the administrative level and judicial review is limited to consideration of the administrative record by cross motions for summary judgment. Therefore, the government’s position in the district court normally would be substantially .justified if, as is usual, the United States attorney does no more than rely on an arguably defensible administrative record. In such a situation, the EAJA would not require an award of attorney’s fees. Moreover, entry of summary judgment for the claimant raises no presumption that the government’s position was not substantially justified.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he Secretary must file any additional and modified findings of fact and decision, and a transcript of the additional record and testimony.... The district court then may enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Secretary's decision.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(d)(1)(A) ... a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses ... incurred by that party in any court ... unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. (B) A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the Court an application for fees and other expenses ...”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.