Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 725 F.2d 1166 - Basinger v. Heckler

Basinger v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

725 F.2d 1166 · 1984

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
September 2016
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 15 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Polaski v. Heckler (1984), Stout v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2006)

45 federal appellate · 15 district ·

4501984199020002010decided

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 Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Stark v. Weinberger · McMillian v. Schweiker · Boyd v. Heckler

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

  1. “medical evidence of a claimant's condition subsequent to the expiration of the claimant's insured status is relevant evidence because it may bear upon the severity of the claimant's condition before the expiration of his or her insured status.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a claimant] should not have his claim denied simply because he failed to see a physician.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “even if it is uncorroborated by objective medical evidence.”
    2 later decisions 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.