Marcus v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Weinberger v. Salfi · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Califano v. Yamasaki · Heckler v. Ringer
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It seems to us that it makes no sense to construe the claims of those three respondents as anything more than, at bottom, a claim that they should be paid for their BCBR surgery. Arguably, respondents do assert objections to the Secretary’s “procedure” for reaching her decision — for example, they challenge her decision to issue a generally applicable rule rather than allow individual adjudication, and they challenge her alleged failure to comply with the rulemaking requirements of the APA in issuing the instructions and the rule. We agree with the District Court, however, that those claims are “inextricably intertwined” with respondents’ claims for benefits.”
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.