Powell v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
789 F.2d 176 · 1986
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2008 · most notably Chrupcala v. Heckler (1987), Williams v. Sullivan (1992)
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
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)
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Inland Waterways Corp. · Sylvia H. Thompson v. Clark M. Clifford, as Secretary of Defense · United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Secs. 30.09, 30.14 (1958). The Social Security Administration's expertise and specialized judgment in the areas of health and social welfare would, of course, be highly relevant factors deserving of deferential consideration were we, for example, reviewing the record for”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the unembellished language of § 404.969 entitles claimants to notice within 60 days where the Appeals Council plans a review. There is nothing on the face of § 404.969 which absolves the Council of its selfimposed duty to provide timely notification of review simply because the claimant has previously filed for reconsideration under § 404.967. When the review anticipated by the Council is to be substantially greater than, or entirely different from that requested, such notice albeit “counternotice” of a sort, is neither redundant nor superfluous but rises to the level of necessity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ambiguity, conflict or outright silence in the applicable regulatory framework”
2 later decisions 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.