Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 899 F.2d 329 - Hyatt v. Sullivan

Hyatt v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

899 F.2d 329 · 1990

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
1
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Craig v. Chater (1996), Dixon v. Shalala (1995)

36 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

510199020002010decided

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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Carnegie v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bowen v. City of New York

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. “[b]ecause pain is not readily susceptible of objective proof, ... the absence of objective medical evidence of the intensity, severity, degree or functional effect of pain is not determinative.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “requires objective medical evidence of an underlying condition that could reasonably produce the pain alleged”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Sec. 423(d)(5)(A) ] and Fourth Circuit pain law are not inconsistent”
    2 later decisions 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.