Davel v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
902 F.2d 559 · 1990
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2011
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Federal Labor Relations Authority · In the Matter of Russell E Sinclair Sr and M Marguerite Sinclairs · Federal Deposit Insurance v. O'Neil · Smith v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is entitled to some weight and should be considered.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Davel urges us to find that the Secretary’s regulation, as applied, is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute. He argues that a mental institution is not a prison, and that Wisconsin differentiates between prisoners and patients. We believe that the Secretary’s interpretation is reasonable. Congress’ language barring imprisoned felons from receiving benefits is mandatory — the Secretary is not given discretion to continue benefits to any incarcerated felon in any case. There is a real difference between persons civilly committed to Mendota and those criminally committed — the latter are there pursuant to felony convictions, and the statute by its terms requires that such persons not be given benefits. Davel is not free to leave the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services even if he suddenly regains his mental health, and the reason he is not free is that he has been convicted of a violent felony. Davel contends that his situation is functionally identical to that considered in Graves v. Heckler, 607 F.Supp. 1186 (D.D.C.1985). In Graves , the court held that benefits should not be suspended under 42 U.S.C. § 402 (x) when the claimant was committed to a mental hospital after a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental defect. The difference between that fact situation and this one is that Davel is serving two concurrent commitments — one civil (like Graves) and one criminal. Davel’s argument is that the difference is irrelevant — that commitmen”
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.