Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 786 F.2d 178 - Gilliland v. Heckler

Gilliland v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

786 F.2d 178 · 1986

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
July 2019
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 24 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Morales v. Apfel (2000), Mason v. Shalala (1993)

5 federal appellate · 24 district ·

2301986199020002010decided

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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Smith v. Califano · Dobrowolsky v. Califano · Podedworny v. Harris

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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Our decisions make clear that determination vel non of substantial evidence is not merely a quantitative exercise. A single piece of evidence will not satisfy the substantiality test if the [agency] ignores, or fails to resolve, a conflict created by countervailing evidence. Nor is evidence substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence — particularly certain types of evidence (e.g., that offered by treating physicians).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “should be made only when the administrative record of the case has been fully developed and when substantial evidence on the record as a whole indicates that the Claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A district court, after reviewing the decision of the Secretary may, under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) affirm, modify, or reverse the Secretary's decision with or without a remand to the Secretary for a rehearing.”
    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.