Russell v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
814 F.2d 148 · 1987
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 404 (§ 204 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Washington v. Heckler · Lee v. Johnson · Brinker v. Guiffrida · Guido v. Schweiker
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is the alleged substantial justification of the government's position in the underlying proceedings ... the petitioner will almost always, if not always, be entitled to fees for litigation over an EAJA fee petition if she is entitled to fees for the underlying litigation;”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... this limited advice was not the only information tendered to Russell by the SSA in connection with her 1974 applications for benefits and cannot be evaluated in isolation. The oral advice that Russell received from SSA office representatives and the message that she received from the Agency’s approval of the application in which she had disclosed the relevant facts regarding Michael’s situation were reasonably taken by Russell as an application of the “in your care” concept to the specific facts of her case. We reject the Secretary’s implicit contention that Russell should have perceived an irreconcilable conflict between the Agency’s apparent interpretation of its own requirements and the otherwise unexplained phrase “in your care.” Assuming that Russell was without fault in 1974 in understanding that Michael was in her care, as we find she clearly was, we fail to see how the Secretary can be substantially justified in maintaining that she was “at fault” on and after July 6, 1977 when the only change of circumstance on that date was that Russell reasonably understood she had only one child in her care rather than two. The Secretary’s own regulations provide that a recipient failing to report an event because of reliance on statements of Social Security personnel is without fault. 20 C.F.R. § 404 .510a (1977) (“Where an individual ... accepts such overpayment because of reliance on erroneous information from an official source within the Social Security Administration ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Russell v. Heckler“(1) [A] reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged; (2) a reasonable basis in law for the theory [the Government] propounds; and (3) a reasonable connection between the facts alleged and the legal theory advanced.”
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.