Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 895 F.2d 492 - Cockerham v. Sullivan

Cockerham v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

895 F.2d 492 · 1990

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Burns v. Barnhart (2002), Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. v. United States (1973)

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

180199020002010decided

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

Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · Polaski v. Heckler · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw · Brown v. Schweitzer

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

  1. “A claimant whose alleged impairment is an I.Q. of 70-79 inclusive has alleged a severe impairment and may be considered disabled after consideration of vocational factors.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “stems from the recognition that the physiological, functional, and psychological consequences of illness and injury vary with each individual. A given injury may affect one individual in an inconsequential way, whereas the same disorder may severely disable another person who has a greater sensitivity to pain or whose physical condition is deteriorated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “1. the claimant’s daily activities; 2. the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; 3. the precipitating and aggravating factors of the pain; 4. the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and 5. the claimant’s functional restrictions.”
    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.