Long v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Long v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
203 citation events (203 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Doe v. DOJ, No. 24-2266 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 533 cited at this page4 citing cases
  • PHH Corp. v. C.F.P.B., No. 15-1177 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2018).published
    Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 533 (Fed.
  • PHH Corp. v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published 2 cites
    Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 533 (Fed.
  • Abrams v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 703 F.3d 538 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
    Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 533 (Fed.Cir.2011). ‘“[G]ood cause’ is to be given meaning through judicial interpretation. ...” Brennan v. Dep’t of Health & Human Sens., 787 F.2d 1559, 1561-62 (Fed.Cir.1986).
  • Abruzzo v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 489 F. App'x 449 (Fed. Cir. 2012).unpublished
    In Long v. SSA, this court reviewed the standard phrased as “conduct that ‘undermines public confidence in the administrative adjudicatory process,’ ” including misconduct “relate[d] in some way to the character traits expected of an ALJ,”…
At page 530 applying substantial evidence review to an appeal from the MSPB3 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
At page 534 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • Shapiro v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 800 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015).published
    Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 534 (Fed.Cir.2011)).
  • Berlin v. Dep't of Labor, 772 F.3d 890 (Fed. Cir. 2014).published
    Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 534 (Fed.Cir.2011); see Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
At page 531 affirming the Board’s overturning of credibility determinations where the Board satisfied the more stringent standard1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Beatrez v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 413 F. App'x 298 (Fed. Cir. 2011).unpublished 2 cites
    (affirming the Board’s overturning of credibility determinations where the Board satisfied the more stringent standard)
At page 532 [Appellant] contends that the Agency’s charac- terization of [his] conduct in the specification of the Com- plaint establishes that it effectively charged [him] with [a] criminal offense. The Agency, however, explicitly charged [Appellant] with conduct unbecoming.1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Doe v. DOJ, No. 24-2266 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026).unpublished 2 cites
    ([Appellant] contends that the Agency’s charac- terization of [his] conduct in the specification of the Com- plaint establishes that it effectively charged [him] with [a] criminal offense. The Agency, however, explicitl…)
At page 535 cited at this page1 citing case
At page 537 finding that knowledge of an ALJ’s behavior among his neighbors, coworkers, and other ALJs, as well as the local police’s posting of his mug shot, constituted “sufficient notoriety or public awareness to warrant ‘good cause’ for disciplinary action1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Seth Grossman v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CB-7521-21-0009-T-1 (MSPB Nov. 28, 2025).unpublished
    (finding that knowledge of an ALJ’s behavior among his neighbors, coworkers, and other ALJs, as well as the local police’s posting of his mug shot, constituted “sufficient notoriety or public awareness to warrant ‘good c…)
At page 538 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Levinson v. Ssa, No. 23-2277 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2024).unpublished
    Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 538 (Fed.
Other citing cases23 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 13 more citing cases
Danvers E. LONG, Petitioner,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent
2010-3108.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sep 13, 2010.
Unpublished opinion
635 F.3d 526
✓ 113 M.S.P.R. 190
Unpublished

ON MOTION

ORDER

The Association of Administrative Law Judges et al. (AALJ) move without opposition for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in support of Danvers E. Long. AALJ also moves for leave to participate in oral argument.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is granted.

(2) The motion for leave to participate in oral argument is deferred for consideration by the merits panel assigned to hear this case. Copies of this order and the motion shall be transmitted to the merits panel.