Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 721 F.2d 445 - Friedberg v. Schweiker

Friedberg v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis

721 F.2d 445 · 1983

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
November 2017
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 18 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Mayburg v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1984), Estate of Landers ex rel. landers v. Leavitt (2008)

5 federal appellate · 18 district ·

1401983199020002010decided

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. § 1395C (§ 1811 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395D (§ 1812 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395X (§ 1861 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Social Security Board v. Nierotko · Livingston v. Califano · Curtin v. Harris · Rowe v. Finch

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “However, even if the Secretary's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, [a court] may review whether the Secretary, in making his findings, applied the correct legal standards to the facts presented.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive ...”
    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.