Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 997 F.2d 321 - Wolfe v. Shalala

Wolfe v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis

997 F.2d 321 · 1993

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
June 2010
most recently cited

17 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Herron v. Shalala (1994), Wayne R. Hartranft v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner Social Security Administration (1999)

17 federal appellate ·

460199320002010decided

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 · Bowen v. Yuckert · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton · Walker v. Bowen · Stephens v. Heckler

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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In determining disability, the ALJ was required to address each of the following questions in sequential order: (1) Is the claimant presently employed? (2) Is the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments severe? (3) Do his or her impairments meet or exceed any of the specific impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1 which the Secretary acknowledges to be conclusively disabling? (4) Have the claimant’s impairments limited his or her remaining or “residual” functional capacity to the point that he or she is no longer able to perform the demands and duties of a former occupation? (5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work in the national economy given his or her age, education and work experience? A negative conclusion at any step (except for step three) precludes a finding of disability. An affirmative answer at steps one, two or four leads to the next step. An affirmative answer at step three or five results in a finding of disability.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “1. The actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant 14 job; or 2. The functional demands and job duties of the occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national economy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “To be relevant, past work must have been done within the last 15 years, lasted long enough for the person to learn to do it, and constituted "substantial gainful activity.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.