Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 436 F.3d 1152 - Watson v. Weeks

Watson v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis

436 F.3d 1152 · 2006

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
3
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Lankford v. Sherman (2006), Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Commissioner of Indiana State Department of Health (2012)

26 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions

410200620102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1320A (§ 1123 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396D (§ 1905 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396N (§ 1915 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396R (§ 1919 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396R (§ 1925 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Cannon v. University of Chicago · Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn. · Gonzaga University v. Doe · Blessing v. Freestone · Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles

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

  1. “objective and thus judicially manageable because the statute tied it to a benchmark of the 'efficiently and economically operated facility.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
    e.g. Mandy R., by and Through Her Parents and Guardians, Mr. And Mrs. R. Lisa W., by and Through Her Parents and Next Friends, Mr. And Mrs. W. Stephanie F., by and Through Her Parents and Next Friends, Mr. And Mrs. F., Marian L., by and Through Her Parent and Guardian, Ms. L. Jodi F., by and Through Her Parents and Next Friends, Mr. And Mrs. F. And Cathy G., by and Through Her Parent and Guardian, Russell G., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, and Colorado Association of Community Centered Boards, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Bill Owens, Governor of the State of Colorado Marva Hammons, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services Karen Reinertson, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Colorado Department of Human Services Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Mandy R., by and Through Her Parents and Guardians, Mr. And Mrs. R. Stephanie F., by and Through Her Parents and Next Friends, Mr. And Mrs. F., Jodi F., by and Through Her Parents and Next Friends, Mr. And Mrs. F. Marian L., by and Through Her Parent and Guardian, Ms. L. Cathy G., by and Through Her Parent and Guardian, Russell G., Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants, and Lisa W., by and Through Her Parents and Next Friends, Mr. And Mrs. W., Colorado Association of Community Centered Boards, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Bill Owens, Governor of the State of Colorado Marva Hammons, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services Karen Reinertson, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Colorado Department of Human Services Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing · Mandy Mr and Mrs R
  3. “Although 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a) sets out a comprehensive list of requirements that a state plan must meet, it does not describe every requirement in the same language. Some requirements, such as ... § 10, focus on individual recipients, while others are concerned with the procedural administration of the Medicaid Act by the States and only refer to recipients, if at all, in the aggregate. Section 30(A) is one of the latter provisions ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.