Soth v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2012
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. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Bowen v. Yuckert · Shalala v. Schaefer · Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · Polaski v. Heckler · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case at bar, the ALJ found: The claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the exertional and nonexertional requirements of work except for: lifting more than a maximum of 10 pounds on the left and more than a maximum of 20 pounds on the right or routinely lifting more than 10 pounds; standing more than 15 to 30 minutes at a time; sitting more than one hour at a time; and walking more than one-half block at a time. Furthermore, the claimant can do no repetitive bending, stooping, squatting, kneeling, crawling, or climbing. Furthermore, the claimant can do no continuous gripping on the left and do no repetitive work overhead with the arms. She cannot work at unprotected heights or around hazardous moving machinery. She can perform simple routine repetitive work not requiring constant very close attention to detail or use of independent judgment for decisionmaking (sic). She can have occasional contact with the public and requires occasional supervision. Finally, she can work at a regular pace. ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 )”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiff’s precise weight limitations are quite important. If Plaintiff is capable of performing only light or sedentary work, the Social Security regulations mandate a finding of disabled. The case is therefore remanded for a medical determination either from one of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, or from a qualified medical professional who personally examines Plaintiff as to Plaintiffs appropriate weight limitations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Soth v. Chater
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.