Hampton v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
785 F.2d 1308 · 1986
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Bowen v. Yuckert (1987), Fraga v. Bowen (1987)
13 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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Richardson v. Belcher · PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins · Stone v. Heckler · Smith 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An individual’s statement as to pain or other symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability ...; there must be medical signs and findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, which show the existence of a medical impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Stone does not require a wholesale remand of all severity cases”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]ew laws apply to pending cases 'unless manifest injustice would result or there is a statutory directive or legislative history to the contrary.' " Hampton v. Bowen, 785 F.2d 1308 , 1310 (5th Cir.1986) (citations omitted). The flaw in Hollis' argument, however, is found in her conclusion that a "new law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hollis v. Bowen
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.