Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 877 F.2d 20 - Weetman v. Sullivan

Weetman v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

877 F.2d 20 · 1989

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
June 2017
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Bayliss v. Barnhart (2005), Flaten v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1995)

20 federal appellate · 2 district ·

3301989199020002010decided

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. § 1291

Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Gamer v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Key v. Heckler · Green v. Heckler · Kornock v. Harris

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

  1. “all the less persuasive since it was obtained by [claimant] only after the ALJ issued an adverse determination”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Substantial evidence means 'more than a mere scintilla' but 'less than a preponderance.' It means 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “) denying her claim for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Appellant contends that the Secretary improperly discounted her subjective pain testimony and erroneously ignored the evidence of disability offered by her treating physicians. We believe substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision and, accordingly, we affirm. PROCEEDINGS BELOW 3 Appellant filed for Title II benefits in September 1984. Her claim was denied initially and again after reconsideration. Appellant then obtained a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (”
    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.