Conahan v. Sebelius’s Empirical Analysis
659 F.3d 1246 · 2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395W (§ 1857 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala · Heckler v. Ringer · American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan · Tackett v. Apfel
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he agency’s interpretation must be given “controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” ... [W]e must defer to the [agency’s] interpretation unless an ‘alternative reading is compelled by the regulation’s plain language or by other indications of [the agency’s] intent at the time of the regulation’s promulgation.”
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.