Purter v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
771 F.2d 682 · 1985
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 15 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Martin v. Malhoyt (1987), 189 Wis. 2d 541 - Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher (1995)
39 federal appellate · 15 district · 11 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. § 1382 (§ 1611 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 Califano v. Sanders · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie · Brown III v. Felsen · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining 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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'designed to draw a line between the meritorious claim on one hand and the vexatious, repetitious and needless claim on the other hand.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he relevant inquiry where there is evidence of alcoholism is not whether the claimant should be able to control his drinking problem or that he says he can control it, but rather “whether the claimant is addicted to alcohol and, as a consequence, has lost the ability to control its use.” The issue of alcoholism, and its interrelationship with other impairments, must then be evaluated to determine whether the claimant can engage in substantial gainful activity.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In McShea, we discussed the scope of the AU’s inquiry once evidence of alcohol abuse is discovered. However, we did not state that the AU should end his inquiry once he has decided whether the claimant is addicted to alcohol, and, as a consequence, has lost the ability to control its use. 700 F.2d at 119 . Taken in the context of our entire discussion of relevant precedent on the issue, the AU must then determine whether alcoholism, alone or in combination with other impairments, prevents the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful employment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilkerson v. Sullivan · 30 soc.sec.rep.ser. 128, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15523a in Re Petition of Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services. William Wilkerson, Robert J. Gardner and William E. Smith, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Honorable John B. Hannum, Nominal William Wilkerson, Robert J. Gardner and William E. Smith, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, (Two Cases) William Wilkerson, Robert J. Gardner and William E. Smith, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services
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.