Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 780 F.2d 1371 - Millbrook v. Heckler

Millbrook v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

780 F.2d 1371 · 1985

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
September 2015
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Cruse v. Bowen (1989), Bolton v. Bowen (1987)

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1501985199020002010decided

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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on McCoy v. Schweiker · O'Leary v. Schweiker · Hancock v. Secretary of Department of Health Education and Welfare · Russell v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Smith 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he report of a consulting physician who examined the claimant once does not constitute 'substantial evidence' upon the record as a whole, especially when contradicted by the evaluation of the claimant's treating physician.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Substantial evidence is defined to include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “explicitly discredits allegations of pain for a legally sufficient reason.”
    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.