Rosen v. Goetz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

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

1. “notice to come in just one letter, as opposed to two”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. Hous. Auth. of Oakland · Perdue v. Murphy

2. “[f]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administration burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Turaani v. Sessions · Prunckun v. Delaware Dept. of Health & Social Services Oldham v. Delaware Dept. of Health & Social Services

3. “In reaching these conclusions, it is not lost on us that the implementation of the State’s disenrollment process will cause hardship for numerous Tennesseans. When a State to its credit achieves the status of becoming one of the most generous providers of Medicaid services in the nation, it may occasionally happen that the zero-sum fiscal realities of administering a state budget will prohibit the State from sustaining that level of support. If that should happen, it is not for the federal courts to compel the State to maintain non-mandatory Medicaid programs that it no longer can support. So long as the State’s disenrollment process satisfies the requirements of the Medicaid regulations and statute, any relevant consent decrees and the Constitution, those policy choices must be left to the elected representatives of the residents of the State. In addressing whether the State’s disen-rollment procedures satisfy these requirements, we have concluded that on their face and with respect to all of the SPMI population they indeed satisfy them. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (holding that in a facial challenge plaintiffs must show that “no set of circumstances exists” under which the statute can be implemented constitutionally). That conclusion, however, does not prohibit an individual TennCare recipient, who is not treated in accordance with these requirements or for whom it is uniquely inappropriate to apply these requirem”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davidson v. Bredesen