DeLong v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 4 district ·

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.

1. “[Section 404.987(a)] could be read to make the reopening of a disability case a remedy of the disappointed applicant— The word “However” in [the regulation] is particularly suggestive that reopening is intended to be for the benefit of the disappointed applicant only — though of course we need not decide in this case whether it must be limited so.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gerstein v. Bowen · 666 F. Supp. 1131 - Weinstein v. Bowen

2. “it would be a quite pointless exercise in shuffling paper for the Council, having received the claimant's notice of appeal within 60 days, to then have to issue its own notice of intent to review the case.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Everhart v. Bowen · Powell v. Heckler

3. “(a) Generally, if you are dissatisfied with a determination or decision made in the administrative review process, but do not request further review within the stated time period, you lose your right to further review. However, a determination or a decision made in your case may be re-opened and revised. After we re-open your case, we may revise the earlier determination or decision. (b) Procedure for reopening and revision. You may ask that a determination or a decision to which you were a party be revised. The conditions under which we will reopen a previous determination or decision are explained in 404.988.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Everhart v. Bowen · McCuin v. Secretary of Health & Human Services