White v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
725 F.2d 91 · 1984
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Mullen v. Bowen (1986), Parker v. Bowen (1986)
22 federal appellate · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Califano v. Sanders · Miller v. Rhay · Beavers v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · The Lorain Journal Company v. Federal Communications Commission, Elyria-Lorain Broadcasting Company, Intervenor. W.W.I.Z., Inc., and Sanford A. Schafitz v. Federal Communications Commission, Elyria-Lorain Broadcasting Company, Intervenor
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'whether or not the [Social Security Administration] held a hearing on whether good cause for the late filing was shown.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Appeals Council may dismiss ... or, in its discretion, deny or grant a party’s request for review of a presiding officer’s decision, or may, on its own motion, within 60 days after the date of the notice of such decision, reopen such decision for review or for the purpose of dismissing the party’s request for hearing for any reason for which it could have been dismissed by the presiding officer____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... on any matter committed to the absolute discretion of the Social Security Administration the Appeals Council may substitute its judgment for that of the AU and the federal courts have no jurisdiction to review that action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moore v. Sullivan
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.