Tucker v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
776 F.2d 793 · 1985
Citation profile
60 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Gavin v. Heckler (1987), Bapp v. Bowen (1986)
60 federal appellate ·
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. § 1381A (§ 1602 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on McCoy v. Schweiker · O'Leary v. Schweiker · Parsons v. Heckler · Reeves v. Heckler · Cummins v. Schweiker
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Secretary must produce expert vocational testimony ... to establish that there are jobs available in the national economy for a person with the claimant's characteristics.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ALJ found Tucker unable to perform his past relevant work as a sanitation worker. Once such a finding is made, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show other jobs in the economy that the claimant is capable of performing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“12 After carefully reviewing the entire record before us, we conclude that the Appeals Council's finding that Webber's nonexertional impairments do not affect her exertional capabilities is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The Appeals Council rejected the ALJ's finding that Webber's complaints of pain were consistent with the clinical diagnosis of her physical impairments and therefore credible. The only reason given by the Council for disregarding the ALJ's finding on pain was its determination that the orthopedic specialist who examined Webber”
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.