15229b v. Dar Lester’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
100 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 626 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably 16105b v. Dar Reddick, 16160b v. Dar Dar Meanel
100 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
Relies on Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Magallanes v. Bowen · Andrews v. Shalala · Bunnell v. Sullivan
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 626 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Step one: Is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. Step two: Does the claimant have a “severe” impairment? If so, proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not disabled is appropriate. Step three: Does the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1? If so, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled. If not, proceed to step four. Step four: Is the claimant capable of performing his past work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five. Step five: Does the claimant have the residual functional capacity to perform any other work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lujan v. Berryhill · Bell v. Astrue“General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant's complaints.”
9 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.