Reed v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
756 F.2d 779 · 1985
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Adamson v. Bowen (1988), United States v. Woods (1989)
16 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 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 · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Roe v. Wade · Califano v. Sanders · Gerstein v. Pugh
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are other legal services clients with a continuing live interest in the case who can represent the class if necessary for certification.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Reed v. Bowen · Adamson v. Bowen“Here, the plaintiffs’ claims are not inherently transitory; rather, they have received favorable judgments from the agency that they sued. The Geraghty Court specifically left open the question whether settlement of the named plaintiffs personal claim would render the case moot. We are persuaded by the thorough opinion in Zeidman, however, that we should extend Geraghty to class claims that have been rendered moot by purposeful action of the defendants. The Zeidman court held that a suit brought as a class action should not be dismissed for mootness upon tender to the named plaintiffs of their personal claims when a diligently pursued motion for class certification is pending before the district court. So long as the claims of the unnamed plaintiffs are presented in a sufficiently adversarial relationship to sharpen the issues, the ability of the defendant to moot the claims of the named plaintiffs by favorable judgments should not prevent reexamination of the class certification issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“we believe that the obvious implication, as shown by the facts in this case, is that other program beneficiaries are also subject to this practice 8 The Secretary apparently agrees with this inference because she argues in her brief that the jurisdictional issue was a threshold question obviating the need for the court to make detailed findings on the class issue. Brief of the Defendants-Appellees at 33 9 Moreover, the Geraghty Court recognized that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Reed v. Heckler
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.