Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 914 F.2d 222 - Swindle v. Sullivan

Swindle v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

914 F.2d 222 · 1990

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
March 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Foote v. Chater (1995), Clifton Sykes Sr v. Kenneth Apfel (2000)

2 federal appellate ·

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Walker v. Bowen · Reeves v. Heckler · Sryock v. Heckler · Chester v. Bowen

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

  1. “If [the claimant's] non-exertional impairments significantly limit basic work activities, the ALJ should not rely solely on the Grids and should take evidence from a vocational expert to determine whether there exists in the national economy a significant number of jobs for someone with [the claimant's] limitations”
    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.