Schoolcraft v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
971 F.2d 81 · 1992
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Titus v. Sullivan (1993), Crayton v. Callahan (1997)
18 federal appellate · 10 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Weinberger v. Salfi · Maine v. Thiboutot · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · Heckler v. Ringer
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'function efficiently and ... have an opportunity to correct its own errors, to afford the parties and the courts the benefit of [the Department's] experience and expertise, and to compile a record [that] is adequate for judicial review.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[t]he Social Security Act does not deal with the concept of 'equality' or with the guarantee of 'civil rights’ as those terms are commonly understood.’ ” Schoolcraft, 971 F.2d at 88 (quoting Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 621 , 99 S.Ct. 1905, 1917 , 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979). Furthermore, the court in Kuehner recognized that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The initial determination of a claim for disability benefits is made by a state agency pursuant to regulations, guidelines and standards established by the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. §§ 421 (a), 421(k)(1), 1383(a) (1988). If the initial determination is adverse, the claimant may request a de novo reconsideration of the claim by the same state agency. 20 C.F.R. § 404.904 -.909 (1991). In Minnesota, the Disability Determination Services of the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training (DDS) has been designated to handle these first two stages of the administrative adjudication process. The DDS acts under the authority and control of the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. §§ 421 (a), 421(k)(1), 1383b(a) (1988); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1503 (a), 416.903(a) (1991). Failure to seek a reconsideration renders the initial decision binding on the claimant. If the reconsideration is adverse, the claimant is entitled to a hearing by the Secretary and may request a de novo hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (b)(1), 421(d), 1383(c)(1) (1988); 20 C.F.R. § 404.967 -.981 (1991). Failure to request a hearing before an ALJ renders the adverse reconsideration a final decision. If the ALJ’s decision is adverse to the claimant, the claimant may appeal that decision, within sixty days, to the Social Security Administration Appeals Council (Appeals Council). A final decision exists once the Appeals Council has denied review or has issued its own decision. After exhausting these remedies, a clai”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Laird v. Ramirez
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.