Solis v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 301 · 1983
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2020
12 federal appellate · 3 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 5 U.S.C. § 556 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a claimant in a disability hearing is not entitled to unlimited cross-examination, but rather 'such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“crucial witness whose findings substantially contradict the other medical testimony”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“has discretion to decide when cross-examination is warranted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Calvin v. Chater
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.