Hillibush v. U.S. Department of Labor, Benefits Review Board’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 197 · 1988
Citation profile
46 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2006 · most notably Elliot Coal Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (1994), Labelle Processing Co. v. Swarrow (1995)
46 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 30 U.S.C. § 901 (Black Lung Benefits Act) · 30 U.S.C. § 921 · 30 U.S.C. § 923 · 30 U.S.C. § 932 · 33 U.S.C. § 919 · 33 U.S.C. § 921 · 5 U.S.C. § 557 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Mullins Coal Co. of Va. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Rowe · Kertesz v. Crescent Hills Coal Co.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[W]e review the decisions of [the Board] for error of law and to assure ourselves that it has adhered to the statutory scope of review.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the testimony of Mrs. Mikels and her daughter, Mrs. Knowles, is sufficient to establish the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment of Carl E. Mikels. These witnesses have used non-medical terms. The factual doubts that are present in their testimony and its interpretation have been resolved in favor of the Claimant as required. The presumption is invoked. 20 CFR [§] 727.203(a)(5)[.]”
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.