Hilst v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
874 F.2d 725 · 1989
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Walker v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2001), Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp. (1995)
20 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1320A (§ 1128 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham · Bush v. Lucas · Schweiker v. Chilicky
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, a comprehensive remedy is provided to physicians when their right to participate in the Medicare program is suspended. As in Chilicky, this remedy includes an elaborate administrative hearing, and administrative and judicial review. Although this remedial framework does not provide Hilst with consequential damages arising from defendant’s unconstitutional conduct, the Court in Chilicky clearly indicated that this lack does not entitle a plaintiff to maintain a Bivens action so long as the remedy, although incomplete, is adequate and the safeguards are meaningful. We believe that the reasoning of Chilicky is applicable here and precludes Hilst from pursuing a Bivens action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although Rule 59 motions are to be served not later than ten days after entry of judgment, courts and commentators generally agree that this ten-day limit sets only a maximum period and does not preclude a party from making a Rule 59 motion before a formal judgment has been entered”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the time for appeal begins to run from the entry of the order disposing of the motion.”
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.