Cox v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
112 F.3d 151 · 1997
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp. (2007), College Loan Corp. v. SLM Corp. (2005)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
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 Carnegie v. United States · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association v. D Cuesta · Jones v. Rath Packing Co. · Gibbons v. Ogden
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under this provision [of the North Carolina Wrongful Death Act], the appellants, as Jack Cox's intestate heirs, are allowed to recover for Jack Cox's medical expenses, and Medicare's subrogated right to recover those medical expenses is limited to $1,500 of the $181,187.75 which Medicare conditionally paid on Jack Cox's behalf. See Forsyth County v. Barneycastle , 18 N.C.App. 513 , 197 S.E.2d 576 , 579 ($1,500 limit on creditor's right to recover strictly construed), cert. denied , 283 N.C. 752 , 198 S.E.2d 722 (1973). Thus compliance with Medicare's secondary payer provisions, which mandates full payment for Jack Cox's medical expenses from the $800,000 settlement, is impossible because of the NC Wrongful Death Act's $1,500 limitation on the recovery of medical expenses. [T]he NC Wrongful Death Act's $1,500 limit on Medicare's right to receive payment for services from a NC Wrongful Death Act settlement is in direct conflict with Medicare's secondary payer provisions which mandates full reimbursement . Consequently, to the extent the NC Wrongful Death Act limits Medicare's right of recovery under the circumstances of this case to $1,500, the NC Wrongful Death Act is preempted. Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Secretary Shalala on her counter-claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, a conflict between state and federal law can arise when compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility ... [and second] when a state ... statute 'sharply' interferes with, or is directly contrary to a federal law ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the federal statute dictates one result and the state statute another, the state statute is preempted to the extent that it directly conflicts with federal law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Virginia v. Webb
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.