Barrs v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
906 F.2d 120 · 1990
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2013
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Bowen v. City of New York · Porzig v. Nolden · Wrenn v. Ohio Department of Mental Health · Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nor has Barrs shown that a determination that he failed to demonstrate grounds for equitable tolling constitutes a plain abuse of discretion; he has not established that his case falls within the narrow class of cases in which the equities in favor of tolling the limitations period are so great that deference to the agency’s determination is inappropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hile the decision whether to extend the period of review is usually left to the [Commissioner], cases occasionally arise where the equities in favor of tolling are `so great that deference to the agency's judgment is inappropriate.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Torres v. Barnhart“The standard of review is whether the district court plainly abused its discretion in denying the rule 60(b) motion.”
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.