Jones v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
949 F.2d 57 · 1991
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Albert Shaw v. Shirley S. Chater, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (2000), Diaz v. Shalala (1995)
11 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Carroll v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Cutler v. Weinberger · Valente v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [party seeking the remand] must show that the proffered evidence is (1) “new” and not merely cumulative of what is already in the record, and that it is (2) material, that is, both relevant to the claimant’s condition during the time period for which benefits were denied and probative. The concept of materiality requires, in addition, a reasonable possibility that the new evidence would have influenced the [Commissioner] to decide claimant’s application differently. Finally, claimant must show (3) good cause for [his] failure to present the evidence earlier.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“even if [the court] might justifiably have reached a different result upon a de novo review.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) “new” and not merely cumulative ..., (2) material, that is, both relevant to the claimant’s condition during the time period for which benefits were denied and probative- The concept of materiality requires, in addition, a reasonable possibility that the new evidence would have influenced the Secretary to decide claimant’s application differently_ Finally claimant must show (3) good cause for her failure to present the evidence earlier.”
4 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.