Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 735 F.2d 312 - Smith v. Heckler

Smith v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

735 F.2d 312 · 1984

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
July 2019
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Podedworny v. Harris (1984), Gavin v. Heckler (1987)

34 federal appellate · 6 district ·

3801984199020002010decided

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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Brand v. Secretary of Department of Health Education and Welfare · Brinker v. Weinberger · McMillian v. Schweiker · Lewin v. Schwieker

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

  1. “We have frequently criticized the failure of the Secretary to consider subjective testimony of the family and others. We have held that a failure to make credibility determinations concerning such evidence requires a reversal and remand. Basinger v. Heckler, 725 F.2d 1166, 1169-70 (8th Cir.1984); see also Simonson v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 426, 429 (8th Cir.1983) (failure to consider subjective testimony about pain). If the ALJ is to reject such testimony, it must be specifically discussed and credibility determinations expressed. Because the ALJ failed to consider this evidence properly, his decision, and those of the Appeals Council and of the district court that were based upon it, must be reversed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If a severe impairment is of the degree set forth in a Listing, and such impairment meets the twelve-month durational requirement, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382c(a)(3)(A), which it does, then Warren”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”
    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.