Lanning v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
777 F.2d 1316 · 1985
Citation profile
32 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably Cline v. Sullivan (1991), Easter v. Bowen (1989)
32 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
Relies on Polaski v. Heckler · McCoy v. Schweiker · O'Leary v. Schweiker · McMillian v. Schweiker · Emil C. Timmerman v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of H.E.W., Kenneth Marks v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of H.E.W.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'does not constitute 'substantial evidence' ..., especially when contradicted by the evaluation of the claimant's treating physician.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Turpin v. Bowen · Piercy v. Bowen“Since this is not a case where we can say for certain that the claimant either would have won or lost irrespective of who shouldered the burden of proof, we must remand.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“FN1. Sedentary work is defined at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567 (a) as: (a) Sedentary work. Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met. FN2. We note that the ALJ applied the grid and found Holland to be disabled. However, as we note in Section 3 of this opinion, application of the grid was error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. Callahan
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.