Ohio Department of Human Services v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.2d 1228 · 1988
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably St. Francis Health Care Centre v. Shalala (2000), Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women v. Knoll (1995)
19 federal appellate · 3 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 42 U.S.C. § 1316 (§ 1116 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 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) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Udall v. Tallman · Harris v. McRae · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · Morton v. Ruiz
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ceiling was in no way compelled by the original regulation, as we read it, or by the underlying statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5380, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8755 Chief Probation Officers of California, and the County of Santa Barbara, California v. Donna Shalala, Mary Jo Bane, and Lavinia Limon, in Their Official Capacities, Department of Health and Human Services and Administration for Children and Families · Chief Probabtion Officers of California v. Shalala“that may assist a court in determining whether a particular rule is legislative or interpretative. Id. The court stated these principles as follows: 35 First, the agency's own label, while relevant, is not dispositive.... An interpretative rule simply states what the administrative agency thinks the statute means, and only”
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.