27 F. Supp. 3d 1 - Halbig v. Sebelius’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 36B · 26 U.S.C. § 4980D (§ 402 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) · 26 U.S.C. § 4980H · 26 U.S.C. § 5000A · 26 U.S.C. § 7421 · 26 U.S.C. § 7422 · 26 U.S.C. § 7805 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Duncan v. Walker
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nor does it seem anomalous that Congress would have intended to allow pre-enforcement challenges by individuals while prohibiting pre-enforcement suits by employers. In fact, another provision in Section 4980H confirms that Congress assumed that employers would raise their challenges in post-collection suits. The statute provides that the Secretary of the Treasury “shall prescribe rules ... for the repayment of any assessable payment ... if such payment is based on the allowance or payment of an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction with respect to an employee, such allowance or payment is subsequently disallowed, and the assessable payment would not have been required to be made but for such allowance or payment.” 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(d)(3)' (emphasis added). No such comparable provision exists with respect to individuals. See generally 26 U.S.C. § 5000A.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.