green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Alexander v. Kijakazi
Nov. 30, 2016) (citing Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 312 (7th Cir. 2012)); see Russell v. Chater, 60 F.3d 824 (Table), 1995 WL 417576, at *3 (4th Cir. July 7, 1995) (per curiam) (explaining that there is no “inflexible rule requiring exhaustive point-by-point discussion in all cases”).
cited
Cited "see"
Ketcher v. Apfel
See Russell, 60 F.3d 824 , 1995 WL 417576 at *3 ; Green, 64 F.3d 657 , 1995 WL 478032 *3 ; Lyall, 60 F.3d 823 , 1995 WL 417654 at *1 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DUKES v. KIJAKAZI
Mar. 8, 2012) (unpublished) (emphasis added) (citing Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (4th Cir. 1986)); see also Russell v. Chater, No. 94-2371, 60 F.3d 824 (table), 1995 WL 417576, at *3 (4th Cir. July 7, 1995) (unpublished) (“Cook, however, does not establish an inflexible rule requiring an exhaustive point-by-point discussion [of listings] in all cases.”).° ° The Cook court’s confinement of the ALJ's duty to explicitly identify listings and compare their elements to the record to situations in which the claimant comes forward with “ample evidence” that an impairment meets…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aerotek, Inc. v. KES Energy Solutions, LLC
App. 158, 166 (1977) (citing Lyell v. Walbach, 111 Md. 610, 614-15 (1909)); see also Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul v. Larosa, 60 F.3d 824 (Table), 1995 WL 420012, at *2 (4th Cir. July 13, 1995) (to prove claim plaintiff required to establish prior transaction giving rise to the indebtedness).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
REYNOLDS v. KIJAKAZI
Mar. 8, 2012) (unpublished) (emphasis added) (citing Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (4th Cir. 1986)); see also Russell v. Chater, No. 94-2371, 60 F.3d 824 (table), 1995 WL 417576, at *3 (4th Cir. July 7, 1995) (unpublished) (“Cook, however, does not establish an inflexible rule requiring an exhaustive point-by-point discussion [of listings] in all cases.”).1° Listing 11.02(B) requires proof of “[d] yscognitive seizures [] occurring at least once a week for at least 3 consecutive months despite adherence to prescribed treatment.” 20 C.F.R.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
VIDRO-OJEDA v. KIJAKAZI
Mar. 8, 2012) (unpublished) (emphasis added) (citing Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (Ath Cir. 1986)); see also Russell _v. Chater, No. 94-2371, 60 F.3d 824 (table), 1995 WL 417576, at *3 (4th Cir. July 7, 1995) (unpublished) (“Cook, however, does not establish an inflexible rule requiring an 11 exhaustive point-by-point discussion [of listings] in all cases.”).° To satisfy the criteria of Listing 1.03, Plaintiff must show that he underwent “[r]econstructive surgery or surgical arthrodesis of a major weight-bearing joint, with inability to ambulate effectively, as defined in [§…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DAYWALT v. SAUL
Mar. 8, 2012) (unpublished) (emphasis added) (citing Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (4th Cir. 1986)}); see also Russell v. Chater, No. 94-2371, 60 F.3d 824 (table), 1995 WL 417576, at *3 (4th Cir. July 7, 1995) (unpublished) (“Cook, however, does not establish an inflexible rule requiring an exhaustive point-by-point discussion [of listings] in all cases.”).'° 10 The Cook court’s confinement of the ALJ’s duty to explicitly identify listings and compare their elements to the record to situations in which the claimant comes forward with “ample evidence” that an impairment m…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
BROCK v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION
See, e.g., Prekler v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 60 F.3d 824 (4th Cir. 1995); Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & Amchem Prods., Inc., 69 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
VINSON v. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.
See, e.g., Prekler v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 60 F.3d 824 (4th Cir. 1995); Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & Amchem Prods., Inc., 69 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SYKES v. SAUL
Mar. 8, 2012) (unpublished) (emphasis added) (citing Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (4th Cir. 1986)); see also Russell v. Chater, No. 94-2371, 60 F.3d 824 (table), 1995 WL 417576, at *3 (4th Cir. July 7, 1995) (unpublished) (“Cook, however, does not establish an inflexible rule requiring an exhaustive point-by-point discussion [of listings] in all cases.”).° 8 The Cook court’s confinement of the ALJ's duty to explicitly identify listings and compare their elements to the record to situations in which the claimant comes forward with “ample evidence” that an impairment meets …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
MORRISON v. SAUL
An ALJ must identify the relevant listed impairments and compare them to a claimant’s symptoms only where “there is ample evidence in the record to support a determination that [the 9 claimant’s impairment] met or equalled [sic] one of the [ ] impairments listed in Appendix 1 . . . .” Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1172 (4th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added); see also Russell v. Chater, No. 94–2371, 60 F.3d 824 (table), 1995 WL 417576, at *3 (4th Cir. July 7, 1995) (unpublished) (“Cook . . . does not establish an inflexible rule requiring an exhaustive point-by-point discussion [of list…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lankler Siffert & Wohl, LLP v. Rossi
Meckel v. Continental Resources Co., 758 F.2d 811, 817 (2d Cir.1985); see also Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul v. LaRosa, 60 F.3d 824 , 1995 WL 420012, at *2 (4th Cir.1995) (holding, in summary judgment motion for accounts stated, that appellants’ claim that invoices were not received is insufficient to overcome law firm’s evidence that invoices and monthly reminders were sent); S.E.C. v. Batterman, No. 00 Civ. 4835, 2002 WL 31190171 , at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Larry Darnell Spears
v.
Ron Angelone Larry Huffman L.M. Saunders Jack Lee Captain Holloway Lieutenant Redman Sergeant Dawson C. Ailstock
v.
Ron Angelone Larry Huffman L.M. Saunders Jack Lee Captain Holloway Lieutenant Redman Sergeant Dawson C. Ailstock
95-6621.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 14, 1995.
Published
60 F.3d 824
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Larry Darnell SPEARS, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Ron ANGELONE; Larry Huffman; L.M. Saunders; Jack Lee;
Captain Holloway; Lieutenant Redman; Sergeant
Dawson; C. Ailstock, Defendants--Appellees.
No. 95-6621.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 1995.
Decided: July 14, 1995.
Larry D. Spears, appellant pro se.
W.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Spears v. Angelone, No. CA-95-297-R (W.D.Va. Apr. 7, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
2
AFFIRMED.