Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 807 F.2d 141 - Underwood v. Bowen

Underwood v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis

807 F.2d 141 · 1986

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
August 2010
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 10 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Joseph T. FRUSTAGLIA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee (1987), Hutsell v. Sullivan (1989)

15 federal appellate · 10 district ·

2001986199020002010decided

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)

Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Jelinek v. Heckler · Rohrich v. Bowen · 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is settled that a district court cannot review the Secretary’s decision not to reopen a prior determination. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-08 , 97 S.Ct. 980, 985-86 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). However, if the Secretary reconsiders the merits of an application previously denied, the matter is considered reopened and subject to review. Jelinek v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 507, 508 (8th Cir.1985).... The narrow exception to Califano created by Jelinek , however, does not apply in this case. First, the ALJ explicitly found that the reconsideration determination of June 30, 1981 was a final decision. Moreover, the AU did not effectively review the merits of the first application....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.