Figueroa v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Cohens v. Virginia · Cohens v. Virginia · Republic of Austria v. Altmann · Illinois v. Lidster
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]ithout some minimal explanation of how a choice has been made, it would seem difficult if not impossible for there to be meaningful review of the age category determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““We will use each of the age categories that applies to you during the period for which we must determine if you are disabled. We will not apply the age categories mechanically in a borderline situation. If you are within a feio days to a few months of reaching an older age category, and using the older age category would result in a determination or decision that you are disabled, we will consider whether to- use the older age category after evaluating the overall impact of all the factors of your case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moody v. Berryhill
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.