Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 925 F.2d 343 - Banta v. Sullivan

Banta v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

925 F.2d 343 · 1991

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
May 2017
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2017

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

90199120002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi · Bowen v. City of New York · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub

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.

  1. “equities in favor of tolling the limitations period [that] are 'so great that deference to the agency's judgment is inappropriate.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the sixty day period is not jurisdictional, but is instead a statute of limitations which the Secretary may waive.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “neither invited submission of additional materials nor enticed her to forgo filing a complaint in district court. " Id. Relying on Triplett, Friddle, and Biron , we noted: 31 A rule allowing claimants to extend their time for filing in district court simply by submitting additional materials which the Appeals Council considers when determining whether to reopen a case would frustrate Congress's intent "to limit judicial review to the original decision denying benefits [and thereby] forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility claims.”
    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.