Driver v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
779 F.2d 509 · 1985
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2003
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1716 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette · Bilby v. Schweiker · Leimbach v. Califano · Valencia v. Heckler
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and it must be based on the record as a whole.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is limited to a determination of whether the Secretary's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied.”
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.