Homewood Professional Care Center, Ltd. v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
764 F.2d 1242 · 1985
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Bodimetric Health Services Incorporated v. Aetna Life & Casualty (1990), Burnett v. Bowen (1987)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395C (§ 1811 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395G (§ 1815 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395H (§ 1816 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395I (§ 1817 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395O (§ 1836 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Weinberger v. Salfi · Davis v. Passman · Carlson v. Green · 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a clear right in the plaintiff to the relief sought; (2) a plainly defined and peremptory duty on the part of the defendant to do the act in question; (3) no other adequate remedy available.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As to constitutional questions relevant to disputes between providers and intermediaries for claims in excess of $10,000, § 1395oo(f) provides that the Board may determine ... that it is without authority to decide the constitutional question involved in the dispute ... Because the Medicare Act clearly requires the presentation of all disputes including any and all constitutional questions to the Board, we hold that the requirement that the constitutional question be presented is nonwaivable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““under exceptional circumstances of clear illegality when the performance of official duty calls for a construction of governing law, the [federal] officer’s interpretation will not be disturbed by a writ of mandamus unless it is clearly wrong and his official action is arbitrary and capricious.” Id. at 1084.”
2 later decisions 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.