Coup v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.2d 313 · 1987
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably Gisbrecht v. Barnhart (2002), Student Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. AT & T Bell Laboratories (1988)
31 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi · Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air · Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b)(1) Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this title who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment, and the Secretary may, notwithstanding the provision of section 205(i) [ 42 U.S.C. § 405 (i) ], certify the amount of such fee for payment to such attorney, out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past due benefits. In case of any such judgment, no other fee may be payable or certified for payment for such representation except as provided in this paragraph. (2) Any attorney who charges, demands, receives, or collects for services rendered in connection with proceedings before a court to which paragraph (1) is applicable any amount in excess of that allowed by the court thereunder shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“but rather [is] a statutory interference with the attorney client contractual relationship[,] which would otherwise be determined by the marketplace for legal services.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Wells v. Bowen · Cotter v. Bowen“a contingency enhancement ... simply recognizes that [the claimant] was willing to pay more to induce his attorney to take a case where there was a risk of nonpayment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.