Ringer v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
697 F.2d 1291 · 1982
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395Y (§ 1862 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 · Califano v. Yamasaki · Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc. · Humana of South Carolina, Inc. v. Califano
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.
“language prohibiting reliance on the federal question or mandamus provisions for any action 'to recover on a claim arising under' the [Social Security] Act only applie[s] to actual claims for benefits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Secretary's presumptive rule that the BCBR operation is not reasonable and necessary was an unlawful administrative mechanism for determining awards of benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Heckler v. Ringer“items or services . . . which are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Heckler v. Ringer
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.