Schweiker v. Gray Panthers’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
450 federal appellate · 170 district · 372 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,542 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), Bowen v. Yuckert (1987)
450 federal appellate · 170 district · 372 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGray Panthers v. Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Sierra Club v. Morton · Weinberger v. Salfi · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Cited together with Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Batterton v. Francis · Harris v. McRae · Herweg v. Ray · Schweiker v. Hogan
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 1,542 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“entitled to more than mere deference or weight.”
111 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Herweg v. Ray · Bowen v. Yuckert“[t]he Medicaid statute ... is an aggravated assault on the English language, resistant to attempts to understand it. The statute is complicated and murky, not only difficult to administer and to interpret but a poor example to those who would like to use plain and simple expressions.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Brown v. Smith · Hogan v. Heckler““incorporate a ‘spend down ’ provision. This allows those individuals who would be eligible under the. SSI standards to deduct their incurred medical expenses from their income. This spend-down [enables] * * * needy individuals to become eligible for Medicaid when that part of their incomes in excess of the 1972 standards is consumed by the expenses for medical needs. Pub.L. No. 92-603 § 209 (b); 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(f).””
9 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.