Doe v. Leavitt’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.3d 75 · 2009
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Sai Kwan Wong ex rel. Wong v. Doar (2009), Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (2018)
9 federal appellate · 12 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 1681B · 42 U.S.C. § 11101 (Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) · 42 U.S.C. § 11133 · 42 U.S.C. § 11136 · 42 U.S.C. § 11151 · 42 U.S.C. § 1320A (§ 1128 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · United States v. Mead Corp. · Christensen v. Harris County · National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services
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.
“[W]hen an agency speaks with something less than the force of law, its interpretations are entitled to deference only to the extent that those interpretations have the “power to persuade.” [This is Skidmore deference.] That is the situation here. We must, therefore, dig deeper. To gauge persuasiveness, an inquiring court should look to a “mix of factors” that “either contributes to or detracts from the power of an agency’s interpretation to persuade.” Those factors include “the thoroughness evident in the agency’s consideration, the validity of its reasoning, and the consistency of its interpretation with earlier and later pronouncements.” “The most salient of the factors that inform an assessment of persuasiveness is the validity of the agency’s reasoning.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] has not exercised this rulemaking authority to set forth his interpretation of the word ‘investigation.’ Instead, the Secretary’s interpretation must be gleaned from (i) an agency manual, the NPDB Guidebook (the Guidebook), issued in September of 2001, and (ii) the Secretary’s decision in this case. The appellant contends that these ‘informal’ interpretations do not warrant deference under the familiar rubric of Chevron-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“words are like chameleons; they frequently have different shades of meaning depending upon the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.