430 F. Supp. 1005 - Klein v. Mathews’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1316 (§ 1116 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395X (§ 1861 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · Perry v. Sindermann · Bishop v. Wood
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the court is deferential to the expertise of HEW, it is rank paternalism to suggest that patients who live in a facility, who have firsthand knowledge of the conditions, who are best equipped to describe how that facility has served them, cannot contribute to the process by which it is determined whether the facility meets federal standards. The court finds it hard to understand how HEW can seriously argue that the very patients whom HEW seeks to protect can have no purposeful role with respect to the condition of their environment. Considering the grievous loss termination of federal financial participation causes, and the patients’ firsthand knowledge of the facts concerning the care provided, the court believes the patients’ role in determining the facility’s compliance is crucial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bracco v. Lackner
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.