Abbey v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 district ·
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. § 1395F (§ 1814 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Weinberger v. Salfi · Heckler v. Ringer · Bowen v. City of New York · California v. ARC America Corp.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 405(h) does not apply on its own terms to Part B of the Medicare program, but is instead incorporated muta-tis mutandis by § 1395Ü. The legislative history of both the statute establishing the Medicare program and the 1972 amendments thereto provides specific evidence of Congress’ intent to foreclose review of only ‘amount determinations’— i.e., those ‘quite minor matters,’ [citation omitted], remitted finally and exclusively to adjudication by private insurance carriers in a ‘fair hearing.’ [Footnote omitted]. By the same token, matters which Congress did not delegate to private carriers, such as challenges to the validity of the Secretary’s instructions and regulations, are cognizable in courts of law. In the face of this persuasive evidence of legislative intent, we will not indulge the Government’s assumption that Congress contemplated review by carriers of “trivial” monetary claims, [citation omitted], but intended no review at all of substantial statutory and constitutional challenges to the Secretary’s administration of Part B of the Medicare program. This is an extreme position, and one we would be most reluctant to adopt without “a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ ” [citation omitted], to overcome the “strong presumption that Congress did not mean to prohibit all judicial review” of executive action, [citation omitted]. We ordinarily presume that Congress intends the executive to obey its statutory commands and, accordingly, that it expects the cou”
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.