Cohen v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
837 F.2d 582 · 1988
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2012
7 federal appellate ·
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. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 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)
Relies on United States v. Dion · Federal Election Commission v. Rose · Torres v. Eastlick · Russell v. National Mediation Board · Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ahrens v. Bowen · Eames v. Bowen“[The District Court judge] noted that since a social security appeal usually will be reversed only if the court finds the Secretary’s position to lack substantial evidence, the practical effect of viewing “substantial evidence” and “substantially justified” as synonymous would be that attorney fee awards would become automatic in virtually all successful social security appeals. This would be contrary to the clearly expressed intent of Congress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to defend an administrative action may be substantially justified although the challenged administrative ruling was found to be unsupported by substantial evidence ... [and] ... a reversal based on the “hazy contours of the ‘substantial evidence’ rule” does not necessarily mean that the position of the Government was not substantially justified.”
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.