Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 746 F.2d 844 - Ganem v. Heckler

Ganem v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

746 F.2d 844 · 1984

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
2
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 21 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Wolcott v. Sebelius (2011), Power v. Barnhart (2002)

33 federal appellate · 21 district · 2 state decisions

23019841990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Weinberger v. Salfi · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · Califano v. Yamasaki · Heckler v. Ringer

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

  1. “[i]t is simply not within the Secretary’s discretion to deprive entitled beneficiaries of their earned rights by virtue of a policy position that virtually assures the Secretary's inability to make a determination which the statute obligates her to make.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No action against the United States, the Board, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under [the statutory grants of jurisdiction to the ’ district courts] to recover on any claim arising under this title.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[N]o other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any ... decision [of the Veterans’ Administration] by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.”
    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.