Floyd v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
833 F.2d 529 · 1987
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably Johnson v. Bowen (1988), Hollis v. Bowen (1988)
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
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 Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Bowen v. City of New York · Moore v. Ogilvie · Fisher v. City of Berkeley
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The timing requirements of Rule 23 are not absolute. Professor Wright explains that “[t]he court always is empowered to make a determination on the merits irrespective of the denomination of the suit as a class action ... the propriety of that inquiry is limited only by concerns of whether the class determination should be postponed until after the merits determination.” C. Wright, A. Miller, and M. Cane, 7 Federal Practice & Procedure, 1785 at 128 (footnote omitted) (1986). Indeed ... the class action litigation may be halted by a ... motion to dismiss or by a ... motion for summary judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 , 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2152 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974), the Supreme Court held that the merits underlying the dispute have no impact upon the district court’s determination whether a class may properly be maintained. There the Court agreed with Judge Wisdom’s conclusion in Miller v. Mackey International, Inc., 452 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir.1971): In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in some circumstances pain alone can be disabling despite the absence of supporting medical evidence for the pain itself, if linked to a 'medically determinable impairment'”
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.