95 F. Supp. 2d 111 - McLaurin v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Pierce v. Underwood · Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jean · Shalala v. Schaefer · Rosa v. Callahan
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f a record demonstrates that a plaintiff could have reasonably expected to obtain a reversal, opposition by plaintiff to an offer to remand would not be excessive even if the court ultimately disagreed with plaintiffs arguments and remanded the case. Similarly, if by opposing a motion by the government to remand a case, a plaintiff could reasonably hope to obtain a remand order with significant specific directives guiding the review beyond those suggested by the Commissioner, the work associated with such an opposition would be reasonably expended and the results obtained would be significant.”
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.