Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 851 F.2d 190 - Webb v. Bowen

Webb v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis

851 F.2d 190 · 1988

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 2010
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010

5 federal appellate ·

401988199020002010decided

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. § 404 (§ 204 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Califano v. Yamasaki · National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23 · Maniscalco v. Cutts · Lugo v. Schweiker

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]hen Congress has ... granted [an] agency authority to issue regulations to implement a statute ... [s]uch regulations survive 'unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[j]udicial review of administrative regulations is closely circumscribed when Congress has not addressed the question at issue and has granted the agency authority to issue regulations to implement a statute.... Such regulations survive 'unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Gumersell
  3. “In any case in which more than the correct amount of payment has been made, there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery by the United States from, any person who is without fault if such adjustment or recovery would defeat the purpose of this subchapter or would be against equity and good conscience.”
    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.