Teitelbaum v. Chater’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Goldberg v. Kelly · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Weinberger v. Salfi · Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e are convinced that, grammatically, 'after the date of enactment' modifies the clause, 'whose claim is finally adjudicated by the Commissioner.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Torres v. Chater · Adams v. Apfel“CLARIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF DISABILITY BENEFITS TO DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS. Section 105(a)(5) of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 ... is amended— * * * by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: “(D) For purposes of this paragraph, an individual’s claim, with respect to benefits under title II of the Social Security Act based on disability, which has been denied in whole before the date of the enactment of this Act, may not be considered to be finally adjudicated before such date if, on or after such date— “(i) there is pending a request for either administrative or judicial review with respect to such claim, or “(ii) there is pending, with respect to such claim, a readjudication by the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to relief in a class action or implementation by the Commissioner of a court remand order.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Redd v. Chater“An individual shall not be considered to be disabled for purposes of this title if alcoholism or drug addiction would (but for this subparagraph) be a contributing factor material to the Commissioner’s determination that the individual is disabled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Redd v. Chater
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.