Stewart v. Bernstein’s Empirical Analysis
769 F.2d 1088 · 1985
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Lowrey v. Texas A & M University System (1997), 30 Cal. 4th 798 - Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003)
19 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 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 42 U.S.C. § 1395X (§ 1861 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 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. § 1396B (§ 1903 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Cort v. Ash · Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The only “rights” cited by appellant appear in the federal regulations and protect, among other things, a patient’s ability to refuse medication, to be transferred for good cause, and to receive adequate notice and pre-transfer preparation. 42 C.F.R. § 405.1121 (k); see also id. § 442.311 (ICF patients’ bill of rights). As we note below, these regulatory rights are enforceable by means other than a civil suit under the Medicaid Act against a private provider of services. In any event, the federal regulations cannot themselves create a cause of action; this is a job for the legislature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[w]hether a state plan strikes a proper balance between ... [simplicity of administration and the best interests of the recipients] is a decision better left to the Department of Health and Human Services and the state agencies responsible for implementing Title XIX.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“numerous provisions short of judicial enforcement that are designed to redress recipients' grievances.”
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.