Pinneke v. Preisser’s Empirical Analysis
623 F.2d 546 · 1980
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Meriwether v. Faulkner (1987), Lankford v. Sherman (2006)
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 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)
Relies on Hagans v. Lavine · Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization · Beal v. Doe · Oldham v. Ehrlich · White v. Beal
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] state plan absolutely excluding the only available treatment known at this stage of the art for a particular condition must be considered an arbitrary denial of benefits based solely on the “diagnosis, type of illness or condition.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(b) Each [medical] service must be sufficient in amount, duration, and scope to reasonably achieve its purpose. (c) The Medicaid agency may not arbitrarily deny or reduce the amount, duration, or scope of a required service ... to an otherwise eligible recipient solely because of the diagnosis, type of illness or condition. (d) The agency may place appropriate limits on a service based on such criteria as medical necessity or on utilization control procedures.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) Physicians' role The committee's bill provides that the physician is to be the key figure in determining utilization of health services and provides that it is a physician who is to decide upon admission to a hospital, order tests, drugs and treatments, and determine the length of stay. For this reason the bill would require that payment could be made only if a physician certifies to the medical necessity of the services furnished.”
3 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.