Tustin v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.2d 1055 · 1984
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Podedworny v. Harris (1984), Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1991)
26 federal appellate · 6 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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 421 (§ 221 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Dandridge v. Williams · Weinberger v. Salfi · Bolling v. Sharpe · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Exhaustion of administrative remedies ensures that the Secretary has a chance to develop fully her position in a case before she must defend that position in the courts, and that the judiciary has access to a detailed administrative record that will facilitate meaningful judicial review.’ Tustin, 749 F.2d at 1062 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cooper v. Bowen · Rankin v. Heckler“Because the preliminary injunction in this case rested on the district court's decision [concerning the constitutionality of a classification], a decision that did not turn on any factfinding, we consider here whether the district court committed an error of law. On questions of law, our scope of review is plenary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a pendent class certification order is not appealable under section 1292(a)(1) unless the preliminary injunction issue cannot properly be decided without reference to the class certification question.”
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.