Florida v. Mathews’s Empirical Analysis
526 F.2d 319 · 1976
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently June 2002 · most notably Woods v. Holy Cross Hospital (1979), Springdale Convalescent Center v. Mathews (1977)
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 1102 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. § 1396G (§ 1908 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Dandridge v. Williams · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Weinberger v. Salfi
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Likewise appellants' Tenth Amendment objections are without merit. Congress and the Secretary have not attempted to establish a federal licensing board in an attempt to prevent the states from regulating nursing home administrators. Instead, the statute and regulation merely establish terms and conditions under which federal assistance will be provided to states that elect to participate in the nursing home component of the medicaid program. The only effect of the statute and regulation is to induce, but not require, a state to license its nursing home administrators in a specified manner; this inducement does not infringe upon any power reserved to the state under the Tenth Amendment. . . . . . Once a state chooses to participate in a federally funded program, it must comply with federal standards.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`the purposes of the enabling legislation.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“exceeded the authority vested in him by Congress”
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.