Hatcher v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 427 · 1985
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2010
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395U (§ 1842 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · Heckler v. Ringer · Lehman v. Nakshian
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any exception to [the Medicare Act's jurisdictional limitations], such as we found in St. Louis University, can have application only to cases where the constitutional claims relating to procedures are collateral to, and not 'inextricably intertwined with,' claims for entitlement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It seems to us that it makes no sense to construe the claims of [those seeking a disputed benefit] as anything more than, at bottom, a claim that they should be paid [by Medicare] for [the disputed benefit]. Arguably respondents do assert objections to the Secretary’s “procedure” for reaching her decision_ [However, those claims are “inextricably intertwined” with respondents’ claims for benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he writ of mandamus is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Barnhart
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.