Channel v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.2d 577 · 1984
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Williams v. Bowen (1988), Thompson v. Sullivan (1993)
77 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Singleton v. Wulff · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Heckler v. Campbell · Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Kirk v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'show that the claimant retains the capacity to perform an alternative work activity and that this specific type of job exists in the national economy.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he mere presence of some nonexertional pain [does] not automatically preclude reliance on the grids,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) [WJhere an individual has an impairment or combination of impairments resulting in both strength limitations and nonexertional limitations, the rules in this subpart are considered in determining first whether a finding of disabled may be possible based on the strength limitations alone and, if not, the rule(s) reflecting the individual’s maximum residual strength capabilities, age, education, and work experience provide a framework for consideration of how much the individual’s work capability is further diminished in terms of any types of jobs that would be contraindicated by the nonexertional limitations.”
4 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.