Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 820 F.2d 768 - Cole v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

Cole v. Secretary of Health & Human Services’s Empirical Analysis

820 F.2d 768 · 1987

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2014
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably Sullivan v. Hudson (1989), Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security (1997)

43 federal appellate · 1 district ·

3501987199020002010decided

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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Kirk v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · McCoy v. Schweiker · Garner 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The claim of nonexertional impairment must indicate a significant or severe limitation precluding the ability (in this case) to do sedentary work.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “claimant has the vocational qualifications to perform specific jobs ... which exist in the national economy.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A mere allegation of a non-exertional limitation is not sufficient ... the determining factor is whether the alleged non-exertional impairment is severe enough to alter the conclusion that the claimant could do a full range of sedentary work.”
    4 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.