Gos Operator, LLC v. Sebelius’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 13951 (§ 40281 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395C (§ 1811 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395E (§ 1813 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395F (§ 1814 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395I (§ 1819 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Mathews v. Eldridge · Weinberger v. Salfi · Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. · 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]otwithstanding the Court's determination ... that GOS’s claims do not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, they appear to satisfy by a comfortable margin the minimal threshold of being 'colorable' ... for purposes of the 'entirely collateral' analysis under Eldridge ”); see also Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 794-95 (9th Cir.1987) (stating that physician who brought due process challenge to denial of full hearing prior to his suspension from Medicare program”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“no review at all” argument was misplaced because the plaintiff could have presented those constitutional/statutory claims in the administrative appeal, “obtained waiver of intermediate procedural steps, and proceeded to bring these claims in federal court in a prompt and timely fashion.” Id. Using the same reasoning, Plaintiff’s claims do not qualify for the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“was not intended to bar federal jurisdiction over a due process challenge that was 'entirely collateral’ to the denial of benefits ... where the petitioner had made a colorable showing that full postdeprivation relief could not be obtained ”) (emphasis added). Even if the underlying claim itself must be”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.