Smith v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
795 F.2d 343 · 1986
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Grizzle v. Pickands Mather & Co./Chisolm Mines (1993), Smith v. Chater (1996)
35 federal appellate · 11 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 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Blalock v. Richardson · Gordon v. Schweiker · Mitchell v. Schweiker · Martin v. Secretary of Department of Health, Education & Welfare
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“great weight ... [and] may be disregarded only if there is persuasive contradictory evidence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e do not conduct a de novo review of the evidence, and the Secretary's finding of non-disability is to be upheld, even if the court disagrees, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the district court reviews the record to ensure that the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and that its legal findings are free of error. If the reviewing court decides that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence, it may affirm, modify, or reverse the ALJ’s ruling with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. A necessary predicate to engaging in substantial evidence review is a record of the basis for the ALJ’s ruling. The record should include a discussion of which evidence the ALJ found credible and why, and specific application of the pertinent legal requirements to the record evidence. If the reviewing court has no way of evaluating the basis for the ALJ’s decision, then the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is .to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Odoms v. Colvin
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.